Fastener head pull-through resistance of plywood and oriented strand board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A nailed or screwed sheathing-to-timber joint may fail in one of two possible modes when subjected to a load applied along the axis of the fastener: fastener head pull-through of the sheathing material and shank withdrawal from the timber. Currently, the Canadian timber design code does not provide specifications to check the first mode of failure. In this study, tests were conducted to determine the head pull-through strengths of some common hammer and power-driven nails and wood screws in plywood and in oriented strand board. These are compared with the calculated shank withdrawal strengths of the same fasteners from timber, assuming it to belong to the Douglas firlarch species group. The test results show that there is no significant difference in strengths between plywood and oriented strand board. Head pull-through strength appears to increase with fastener diameter. The major conclusion reached is that, except for small size nails (less than 2 in. long), fastener head pull-through in sheathing prevails over shank withdrawal from timber in sheathing-to-timber joints when loaded axially.Key words: nail, wood screw, head pull-through, withdrawal strength, timber, design capacities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".