MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081058468

Horisontalstabilisering i småhus - Råspont som stabiliserande system i tak

2020· article· da· W3081058468 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacob Estlund, Maxine Persson

Bibliographic record

VenueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageda
FieldEngineering
TopicCivil and Structural Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEurocodeTrussStructural engineeringRoofStability (learning theory)Groove (engineering)EngineeringHorizontal and verticalStructural systemOrder (exchange)Computer scienceMathematicsGeometryMechanical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Each year, approximately 10 000 single-family houses are built in Sweden, a majority of which are timber-framed. Even larger buildings are more commonly being designed with timber structural systems as wood is considered having a lesser impact on the environment compared to steel and concrete. In most single-family houses, prefabricated timber roof trusses are used in combination with tongue-and-groove planking as the load-carrying roof structure. The planking is partially used in order to distribute the vertical loads but also in order to stabilize the structure against horizontal loads. Even though tongue-and-groove planking has been used for decades in single-family houses, there is currently no established method, in Sweden, in order to calculate its in-plane load-carrying capacity. Generally it is currently not required to check the horizontal stability of single-family houses, however, in the early 2000s several collapses in timber-structures occurred throughout Europe due to insufficient horizontal stability. Thus, there is a possibility that the requirements in Eurocode might be tightened. Therefore, there is an interest in being able to confirm the adequacy of the lateral stability even in small houses. The purpose of this thesis is therefore to investigate the accuracy of theoretical calculations by comparing theoretical results with experimental results. The objective is to conclude whether or not a design-equation is applicable in structural engineering calculations. In the early stages of the literature review, a canadian equation was found which uses the force-couples in every pair of nails to calculate the structure's in-plane shear-capacity. In this thesis, a literature review, tests and calculations were carried out. The literature study was conducted in order to gain knowledge regarding the in-plane shear capacity of timber structures. The tests comprised a total of 13 specimens with three different assemblies. The specimens were 2,4 x 2,5 m elements consisting of tongue-and-groove sheets with pins nailed to timber studs with a cc of 1200 mm. Before the tests were carried out, theoretical calculations of the specimen's racking strength were executed. Finally, an example of how the theoretical equation could be applied in a typical 1,5-storey single-family house was conducted with the intention to investigate whether or not the results were sufficient to handle the lateral stability. The results from the tests showed that in the specimen where the pins were removed and individual planks were used, the equation gave an accurate estimation of the in-plane shear capacity whereas the specimen with pins had a capacity more than twice that of the calculated value. Furthermore, the stiffness in the specimens with pins were significantly higher than in the specimen without. It was also concluded that the jointing method in between the sheets, friction and the moisture content did not appear to affect the strength. In the example, the design-equation was applied to a 1,5-storey single-family house exposed to large snow- and wind loads and it was concluded that the tongue-and-groove planking provided sufficient lateral stability without considering the extra capacity from the pins.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.025

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.171 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University)Same topicCivil and Structural Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207