MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025223947 · doi:10.1179/wsc.2008.18.2.59

Wood and Engineered Wood Product Connections Using Small Steel Tube Fasteners: An Experimental Study

2008· article· en· W2025223947 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bona Murty, Andi Asiz, Ian Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Institute of Wood Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Resources CanadaImperial College London
KeywordsDuctility (Earth science)StiffnessEngineered woodComposite materialMaterials scienceTube (container)Tension (geology)Structural engineeringOriented strand boardFracture (geology)Ultimate tensile strengthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The work discussed is aimed at identifying combinations of 'wood member' materials and mechanical fasteners capable of creating structural connections that have high initial stiffness, high strength and high ductility. Experimentation shows that the goal can be achieved by joining sawn wood and Engineered Wood Products (EWP) using steel tube fasteners with outside diameters up to 12.7 mm in conjunction with steel plate link elements. Wood members considered are Spruce lumber and Laminated Strand Lumber (LSL), with rectangular cross-sections. In such connections the steel plate link elements are located in slots cut into the ends of wood members so that the plates lie in planes parallel to wide faces of the joined members. Fasteners are placed in tight-fitting pre-drilled holes that penetrate both members and link elements. Connection specimens were axially loaded in tension at a loading rate that caused the maximum capacity to be reached in about 0.1 hours. All test specimens exhibited highly ductile failure, as well as good strength and stiffness. Some splitting occurred at failure in specimens with larger sized tube fasteners in Spruce sawn lumber members, reflecting that lumber has inherently low fracture resistance. However, there was no evidence of splitting in specimens with LSL members because it is a highly fracture resistant material. As revealed by the experimentation, it is possible to prevent premature splitting failures in connections that join either sawn wood or EWP provided that tube fasteners are correctly sized.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Institute of Wood ScienceSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207