Study shear behavior for stud-groove connector in timber-concrete composite structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Timber-concrete composite structures (TCCs) are widely gaining interest in Europe and America, because of its high strength and low energy-consumption structure. The key design point of timber-concrete composite structures are to ensure the reliability of the shear connectors. The objective of this paper was to predict structural response with finite element (FE) analysis and provide shear property of stud-groove-type connectors in TCC structures. In this paper, some experiments were done to provide the material property of timber and concrete, then the finite element model was built with the software ANSYS to analyze the connector property of the timber-concrete composite structure with interlamination slips. Additionally, push-out tests with different parameters (stud diameter, stud length, groove width, and groove depth) were tested to obtain the shear capacity and slip modulus of stud-groove connectors and validate the correction of shear strength from the finite element model. This study indicates that the shear capacity and slip modulus of stud-groove-type connectors was in direct proportion to the diameter of studs and the dimension of the groove. The finite element analysis can predict the shear strength of the stud-groove connector in a satisfying way.
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) | 0.000 | 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".