MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336562958 · doi:10.14288/1.0099629

Effect of proof loading on the strength of lumber

2009· article· en· W2336562958 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles Kumi Gyamfi

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsForensic engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Monte Carlo simulation program was used in this study to evaluate the performance of No.2 and better grade combination of 38 mm x 140 mm Western Hemlock lumber proof loaded in bending. Two proof load magnitudes of 19.54 MPa and 23.05 MPa representing the 2nd and 5th percentile load levels of the short-term strength respectively were selected for the proof testing program to investigate the impact of proof loading. The rate of loading for all the testing programs was 2679 MPa/hr. The Canadian damage accumulation model was incorporated into the simulation program to calculate the probability and time-of-failure of every member as well as the strength of the survivors after testing at the two proof load magnitudes. Damage accumulated in a member was quantified based on the strength of the weak survivors. It was found that damage accumulated appears to be greater in the weaker survived members tested at the 2nd percentile load level compare to the weaker survivors tested at the 5th percentile load level. Forty pieces of the 2000 members tested at the 2nd percentile load level broke during proof loading whereas 101 pieces failed when the 2000 members were proof loaded at the 5th percentile load level. Plots of cumulative probability distributions indicated no significant difference between the original short-term strength and the strength of the survivors tested at both proof load levels. However, approximately 11% damage was accumulated in the weakest survived members proof loaded at the 2nd percentile proof load level compared to a damage level of 1.2% experienced by the weakest survived member proof loaded at the 5th percentile load level. It appears damage did not accumulate in the survivors with bending strength values beyond 20.69 MPa and 24.48 MPa for the 2nd and 5th percentile proof load levels respectively. Therefore, when a proof load magnitude of 23.05 MPa is selected to evaluate the performance of 38 mm x 140 mm Western Hemlock lumber in bending, more reliable survivors may be obtained compare to a proof load magnitude of 19.54 MPa.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.155
Teacher spread0.149 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207