Glued-in multiple steel rod connections in cross-laminated timber
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing popularity of cross-laminated timber (CLT) provides opportunities to extend the use of wood beyond traditional low-rise residential construction. For the high-performance material CLT to achieve its full utilisation, adequate joining techniques are required. With that in mind, while glued-in rods (GiR) are a powerful technical solution for numerous timber engineering applications, with proofed performance in solid wood, only few studies are available on the performance of GiR connections in CLT. Critical research gaps exist regarding the performance of multiple GiR, which this paper suggest to fill. Herein, experimental investigations on the performance of multiple GiR in CLT are presented. Steel rods of diameter d = 12.7 mm were glued-into CLT panels with two anchorage lengths (10d and 18d), three numbers of rods (1, 2 and 3), and two spacings between rods (s = 4d and 6d). In total, 10 test series with 5 replicates, thus 50 specimens, were manufactured and subsequently tested under uni-axial quasi-static monotonic tension. The results, assessed in terms of load-carrying capacity, demonstrated that GiR in CLT offer an alternative high-performance timber connection, and allows for more insights relating load capacity to the number, the anchorage length, and the spacing between rods.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".