MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230637367 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14656062

Experimental study on the flexural behavior of structural insulated sandwich timber panels

2021· preprint· en· W4230637367 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aleem Shahzad Butt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsServiceability (structure)Structural engineeringFlexural strengthRoofSandwich-structured compositeDeflection (physics)Limit state designLimitingCreepEngineeringEngineered woodStructural systemComposite numberMaterials scienceCivil engineeringComposite materialMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of flexural test and creep tests were conducted on 53 OSB structural insulated sandwich timber panels to predict their behavior when subjected to gravity loading when used in residential and low rise nonresidential buildings. The experiments were designed and performed to test full-scale panels for roof and floor residential construction. The structural adequacy of the developed sandwich panel system is investigated with respect to the effectiveness of the foam core in providing composite action required to meet both strength and serviceability limit-state design reruirements per Canadian Standards for timber design. Strength requirements included flexure and shear, while serviceability check included limiting deflection under operating conditions as well as creep performance under sustained loading. Results from experimental testing were used to draw conclusions with respect the structural qualifications for these SIPs to be "as good as" the structural capacity of conventional wood-frame buildings

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207