MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319640124 · doi:10.1061/9780784479117.195

Shear Connections with Self-Tapping Screws for Cross-Laminated Timber Panels

2015· article· en· W2319640124 on OpenAlexaff
Afrin Hossain, R B Hari Lakshman, Thomas Tannert

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2015 · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross laminated timberStructural engineeringShear (geology)StiffnessTappingJoint (building)EngineeringMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross-Laminated-Timber (CLT) is increasingly gaining popularity in residential and non-residential applications in North America. To use CLT as lateral load resisting system, individual panels need to be connected. In order to provide in-plane shear connections, CLT panels may be joined with a variety of options including the use of self-tapping-screws (STS) in surface splines and half-lap joints. Alternatively, STS can be installed at an angle to the plane allowing for simple butt joints and avoiding any machining. This study investigated the performance of CLT panel assemblies connected with STS under vertical shear loading. The three aforementioned options were applied to join 3ply and 5-ply CLT panels. A total of 60 mid-scale quasi-static shear tests were performed to determine and compare the connection performance in terms of strength, stiffness, and ductility. It was shown that – depending on the screw layout – either very stiff or very ductile joint performance can be achieved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2015Same topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207