MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972097856 · doi:10.1139/l02-020

Seismic performance of connections in heavy timber construction

2002· article· en· W1972097856 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Marjan Popovski, Helmut G. L. Prion, Erol Karacabeyli

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsRivetStructural engineeringDuctility (Earth science)EngineeringFailure mode and effects analysisSeismic analysisBucklingFastenerBolted jointFinite element methodMaterials scienceCreepComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Results from monotonic and quasi-static cyclic tests on connections used in heavy timber construction are presented for two types of fasteners: steel bolts and glulam rivets. Bolted connections with three different diameter bolts, arranged in several configurations, as well as two different configurations of glulam rivet connections were tested. All configurations included a main glulam member and two steel side plates. For bolted connections, the seismic behaviour was found to be primarily dependent on the bolt slenderness ratio. Bolted connections with higher slenderness ratios (smaller diameter bolts) exhibited more ductile behaviour with considerable steel yielding and wood crushing before failure. Glulam riveted connections, which were designed in rivet failure mode, showed superior seismic performance when compared to bolted connections for similar design load levels. Riveted connections were also able to dissipate the highest amount of input energy before the failure was reached.Key words: timber connections, glulam rivets, bolts, ductility, timber, wood, braced frames, seismic performance, heavy timber construction.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.149
Teacher spread0.141 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207