MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310886691 · doi:10.15376/biores.18.1.827-843

Comparative study on connection properties of shear bolt and screw of thin cross-laminated timber panel

2022· article· en· W4310886691 on OpenAlexaff
Daiyuan Zhang, Liming Shen, Xudong Zhu, Sujun Zhang, Meng Gong, Yuewen Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersQinglan Project of Jiangsu Province of ChinaPriority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education InstitutionsNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCross laminated timberMaterials sciencePerpendicularComposite materialStiffnessStructural engineeringShear (geology)Ductility (Earth science)Ultimate loadShear strength (soil)Geotechnical engineeringEngineeringFinite element methodGeologyCreepGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross-laminated timber (CLT), a wood product with excellent shear resistance, is often used in modern timber constructions. Using the standards ASTM D1761-12 (2020) and NDS-2012 (2012), this study investigated the connection properties of shear bolts and screws in CLT panels. The specimens were made from spruce-pine-fir lumber and installed on a test platform using one high-strength bolt or eight screws, and then an upward load was applied to the top of the specimen. The results showed that the bolt connection provided a higher ultimate bearing capacity and elastic stiffness. The bolt exhibited virtually no deformation, and the CLT panel did not noticeably deteriorate when the connection was damaged. The distance between the bolt hole and the bottom of the CLT specimen and the angle between the outer-layer grain direction of the CLT panel and the load direction were both measured. Changes in the ductility coefficient value had an obvious effect on the connection performance of the shear bolts when the outer-layer grain direction of the CLT panel was consistent with the load direction. Contrastingly, when the outer-layer grain direction of the CLT panel was perpendicular to the load direction, the effect was negligible, and the yield load was nearly unchanged.

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: 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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207