In-Plane Investigation of Log Walls with Various Orthogonal Joineries Employing Finite Element Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Log house construction is a well established style of home building across many centuries. Orthogonal joineries classically guarantee structural strength in log house construction. The paper investigates the structural response of log walls with orthogonal, standard, and Butt-and-Pass joineries under lateral loads. Finite element models are developed and validated through comparisons with available experimental results. Various parametric studies are presented assessing the effect of the penetration length, openings, reinforcement methods, log profiles, and log wall orthogonal joineries on the lateral strength and stiffness of the wall systems. The study indicates a significant impact of these parameters on the log wall lateral load-resisting behaviour. Finite element models show that the log walls with the TR system (three bottom and three top logs were tied with the rods) demonstrated the greatest maximum lateral resistance, followed by the Tie-down system. Generally, a greater initial stiffness was indicated in the log walls with the Tie-down system, followed by the TR system.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".