Design capacities of joints with laterally loaded nails
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Capacities of joints with laterally loaded nails may be predicted using "European yield" type models (EYMs) with various levels of complexity. EYMs presume that a nail and the wood on which it bears exhibit a rigidplastic stressstrain response. Consideration is given in this paper to the "original" model published by K.W. Johansen in 1949, an empirical approximation proposed by L.R.J. Whale and coworkers in 1987, and a curtailed and "simplified" model proposed by H.J. Blass and coworkers in 1999. Predictions from the various EYMs are compared with experimentally determined ultimate capacities of single and double shear joints. Experiments covered a range of combinations of member thicknesses and two nail sizes. The impact of modelling assumptions is illustrated in the context of the Canadian timber design code. Suggestions are made regarding the necessary level of complexity for nailed joint models used in design.Key words: timber, joints, nails, yield model, ultimate limit state, design.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".