MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380450807 · doi:10.52202/069179-0240

FIRE RESISTANCE TESTING OF CLT-CONCRETE COMPOSITE FLOOR SLABS UTILIZING GLUED-IN STEEL PLATES AS SHEAR CONNECTORS

2023· article· en· W4380450807 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam Petrycki, Sam Salem

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStructural engineeringMaterials scienceComposite numberComposite materialSlabFlexural strengthShear (geology)EpoxyBendingBending momentStructural loadEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Timber-concrete composite (TCC) sections have shown desirable mechanical characteristics for use in the structural design of mass timber buildings at both ambient and elevated temperatures.TCC sections have advantages over conventional steel-reinforced concrete elements or timber elements on their own.While some recent performance-based design guidelines have been developed to aid in the design of TCC sections, they primarily rely on experimental data from specific TCC arrangements with certain types of shear connectors (e.g., steel plates, metal screws, etc.).The study presented in this paper involves experimental testing of two full-size CLT-concrete composite one-way floor slabs that were exposed to elevated temperatures of the CAN/ULC-S101 standard fire time-temperature curve, while being subjected to four-point flexure bending that is equivalent to the moment developed by a uniformly distributed 4.8 kPa service load.Each TCC slab assembly had a clear, simply supported span of 5000 mm and a width of 900 mm.The CLT panel composition (5 plys) and thickness (143 mm) were chosen to investigate how its one-hour fire resistance under the applied service loads could be increased to two hours by developing the composite action with the added concrete layer (90 mm thick) that otherwise would impose |dead load on the CLT panel without contributing to the overall strength of the floor system.Shear connectors utilized in these two TCC floor assemblies were perforated steel plates installed in prepared longitudinal slots using epoxy.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207