Bolted woodsteel and woodsteelwood connections: verification of a new design approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper covers the verification tests carried out at the Royal Military College of Canada on woodsteelwood and woodsteel bolted connections. Thirty groups of specimens were tested. Specimen configurations were selected in such a way to include fundamental brittle and ductile failure mode cases. Comparisons between experimental results and predictions from proposed equations developed from steelwoodsteel bolted connections are given. Proposed design equations were found to provide better predictions of the ultimate loads than current CSA Standard O86.1 design procedures especially for bearing. However, row shear-out predictions seem to overestimate the strength. An adjustment using the reduced (effective) thickness concept is therefore proposed. Experimental observations on specimens that failed in row shear-out indicated that shear failure occurred over a reduced thickness. Stress analysis confirms findings on the reduced thickness. The research program is described in this paper along with the results and the proposed design equations for woodsteelwood and woodsteel bolted connections loaded parallel-to-grain.Key words: woodsteelwood, woodsteel, bolt, connection, strength, failure, design, thickness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".