Wood and Engineered Wood Product Connections Using Small Steel Tube Fasteners: Applicability of European Yield Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Capacities of wood connections with laterally loaded dowel fasteners by plastic analysis can be predicted using the European yield models (EYM) equation. The underlying concept is that failure occurs due to crushing of wood beneath fasteners and / or formation of plastic hinges in fasteners with a rigid-plastic representation of the materials involved. EYM prediction is now “the” way within design codes to calculate the maximum attainable capacity per fastener. Subsequent adjustments discount those predictions through factors which account for unequal sharing of force between fasteners and premature connection failure by fracturing. In North America the EYM is the basis for lateral load capacities of connections made with bolts, drift-pins, screws, nails, and timber rivets. This paper addresses the capability of the EYM for predicting load carrying capacities of solid wood (sawn softwood lumber) and laminated strand lumber (LSL) connections employing tight-fitting steel tube fasteners with external diameters up to 12.7mm. EYM prediction is compared with experimental test results for arrangements with one or four fasteners loaded in double shear. Accuracy of predictions depends on factors such as connection geometry and the type of wood member involved. Prediction is always accurate if a connection has only one fastener, or if joined members are made from LSL. If members are made from sawn softwood lumber premature brittle splitting type failure modes occur for multiple fastener situations, with impairment of capacity inversely proportional to the fastener outside diameter. Suggestions are made here regarding the nature of codified design rules for steel tube fastener connections, with the intent that such provisions be enacted within North America.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".