Tensile and fatigue investigations of timber joints with glued-in FRP rods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glued-in rods are an effective method to form timber connections that are increasingly in the focus of research. Compared to steel rods, fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars provide higher resistance against corrosion, reduced weight, and lower heat conductivity. Despite excellent mechanical performance, high fire resistance, and improved aesthetics, they are, however, not yet widely used due to lack of design regulation. This is particularly true for cyclic loads, where determination of fatigue characteristics depends upon time-intensive experimental procedures. In this research, 50 glued-in FRP rod specimens with different embedment lengths were manufactured and tested in uniaxial tension: a first set under quasi-static load and a second set under cyclic load. For the fatigue tests, a new approach based on a stepwise load increase was used to estimate fatigue strength, a method that aims at reducing the experimental effort usually associated with Woehler curves. Experimental results indicated that quasi-static and fatigue strength increased with the overlap length up to an apparent maximum. The estimated fatigue strength from the load increase tests (LITs) was approx. 41% of the quasi-static strength. Additionally, constant-amplitude tests were performed and the obtained data points fit well into established Woehler curves for 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".