Failure tests on full-scale models of grout laminated wood decks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grout laminated wood decks (GLWDs), representing the third generation of stressed wood decks, comprise either laminates or logs trimmed to obtain two parallel faces. The logs or laminates, running along the span, are held together by means of transverse internal grout cylinders that may be in either compression or tension. Two full-scale models of GLWD were constructed at Dalhousie University, Halifax, one with grout cylinders in compression and the other with the cylinders in tension. Service load tests conducted in Halifax showed that the former deck had better load distribution characteristics. Two years after the tests in Halifax, the models were shipped to The University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, where they were tested to failure under a central patch load. Because of miscommunication with the supplier, the logs of the GLWD with grout cylinders in compression were also trimmed to the third face that was kept at the bottom of the deck. The failure tests showed that despite its superior load distribution characteristics, the deck with grout cylinders in compression failed at a significantly lower load than the GLWD with cylinders in tension. It is argued that a planar surface in the logs at the flexural tension face not only reduces their flexural stiffness but also brings the defects of wood to the surface with maximum stress. The deck with the flat bottom surface underwent tension failure of the most heavily loaded logs, whereas the deck with the intact round surface of the logs at both top and bottom failed by horizontal splitting of all the logs.Key words: articulated plate, bridge deck, grout laminated deck, orthotropic plate, timber.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".