MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cross-Laminated Timber Shear Connections with Double-Angled Self-Tapping Screw Assemblies

2016· article· en· W2413879854 on OpenAlexafffund
Afrin Hossain, Ilana Danzig, Thomas Tannert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMitacs
KeywordsCross laminated timberStructural engineeringStiffnessDuctility (Earth science)Shear (geology)Materials scienceYield (engineering)Connection (principal bundle)Seismic loadingComposite materialDisplacement (psychology)Shear wallEngineeringCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research presented in this paper examines the shear resistance performance of self-tapping screws (STS) in three-ply cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels. Specifically, the feasibility of using innovative STS assemblies with double inclination of fasteners was investigated for the shear connection of CLT panels. The specimens (1.5×1.5 m) were subjected to quasi-static and reversed-cyclic loading. The tests were set up to approximate pure shear loading, with three-panel CLT assemblies connected with STS. The resulting load-displacement and hysteretic curves were used to determine an equivalent energy elastic-plastic curve to estimate assembly capacity, yield load, yield displacement, ductility ratio, stiffness, and damping. Excellent structural performance in terms of capacity and stiffness was obtained while still providing the required ductility for the system to be used in seismic applications. The average static and cyclic yield loads were 6.0 kN/screw and 5.9 kN/screw, respectively. Average static and cyclic and ductility ratios were 7.7 and 4.1, respectively, allowing the connection to be classified as highly ductile under quasi-static loading and moderately ductile under reversed cyclic loading. The data obtained allow engineers to specify an innovative connection assembly with double inclination of fasteners for lateral load–resisting systems of CLT structures.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations113
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207