Mechanical performance of poplar laminated veneer lumber truss joints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poplar laminated veneer lumber (LVL) offers many advantages such as high strength and small variability. This study explored the application of poplar LVL for making light timber trusses in China. A total of 12 poplar LVL truss joint specimens were designed and constructed, including truss support joints and ridge joints connected by bolts and tooth plates. The mechanical properties of the poplar LVL truss joints were experimentally tested and theoretically calculated. It was found that (1) the average bearing capacity of 10-mm bolted joints was 12.98%–22.62% higher than that of 8- or 12-mm bolted ones; (2) the average bearing capacity of ridge joints with 133 mm × 75 mm tooth plates was 23.03% and 28.22% higher than those with 152 mm × 75 mm and 152 mm × 50 mm tooth-plate connected ones; (3) the average bearing capacity of the bolted joints was higher than that of the tooth-plate connected ones when the shape of both joints were the same; (4) The damage of LVL dowel grooves and pull-out of tooth-plates from LVL were observed in the bolted and tooth-plate connected joints, respectively; and (5) The calculated values were, in comparation with the experimental results, were conservative for bolted joints and were in good agreement with the tooth-plate connected ones.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".