APPLICATION OF A TUBE CONNECTOR FOR CATENARY ACTION IN CLT FLOORS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-storey buildings require provisions to avoid disproportionate consequences after unexpected events, e.g. explosions or human error during design and construction. To prevent failure progression in the structure after an initial damage (loss of load-carrying elements), alternative load paths, like catenary action, should be provided. Catenary action supports the sagging structure after element loss by transferring the loads horizontally to the adjacent elements; this mechanism requires the connections to remain ductile under high load. Conventional dowel-type connectors in timber structures have limited potential to develop catenary action in beams or floors. A previously developed tube connector exhibited desirable behaviour to develop catenary action in cross-laminated timber floors; however, the tube exhibited and undesirable failure mode. In the present study, the behaviour of a newly designed variant of the tube connector was experimentally investigated under catenary action. The new connector design was tested in varying configurations, at both the component level and full-scale floor level, in Canada and Sweden. The results show that a more desirable behaviour of the adapted connector could be achieved compared to the previous design, with respect to catenary action.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it