MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036153893 · doi:10.1080/17480272.2020.1776769

FE stress analysis and prediction of the pull-out of FRP rods glued into glulam timber

2020· article· en· W3036153893 on OpenAlexaff
Mansouri Khelifa, Marc Oudjène, Slim Ben-Elechi, Mourad Rahim

Bibliographic record

VenueWood Material Science and Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticRodBrittlenessDurabilityStructural engineeringEpoxyMaterials scienceGlass fiberStress (linguistics)Composite materialForensic engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on the FE analysis of the mechanical behavior of glued composite fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) rods into glulam timber, using a 3D-continuum damage mechanics. The application of FRP to the glulam timber beams, despite the fact of limited investigations to date, offers an interesting and economic solution for strengthening in timber construction. In particular, the use of glued-in FRP rods for timber connections instead of steel is of great interest, due to the improved durability of the joint systems compared to their equivalent counterparts made of steel rods. For pull-out tests, the estimation of the mechanical response of glued FRP rods into glulam timber is very complex because of the combination of the three different materials: FRP rods, epoxy resin and glulam timber as well as the complexity of the expected brittle modes of failure of the timber. On the other hand, the existing prescriptive approaches (standard design codes) did not cover all the modes of failure expected within timber material and their predictivity is highly depending on the loading direction and on the rod material. There is, therefore, still a need to establish a general and predictive FE model to simulate accurately and cost-effectively the glued-in rod timber connections. In this study, a FE model combining 3D continuum damage mechanics (CDM) and cohesive zone modeling approaches is presented and its effectiveness was verified by comparison to experimental results available in the literature.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWood Material Science and EngineeringSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207