MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391014884 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2023-0298

Behaviour of glued-laminated timber beams under impact loading

2024· article· en· W4391014884 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Nicole Wight, Christian Viau, Patrick Heffernan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis of Composite Materials
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringEngineeringBeam (structure)Forensic engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Short duration loads, such as impact loading, have the potential to generate catastrophic effects on infrastructure and loss of life. Although design provisions for engineered wood products are included in Canada’s blast design standard, CSA S850, how these structural materials respond to blast and impact loads across a wide range of high strain rates has not been well documented. An experimental program was carried out using a newly established Drop Weight Impact Testing Facility to investigate the flexural behaviour of glued-laminated timber beams subjected to impact loading. High strain rates were generated, whereby the dynamic specimens were found to differ quantitatively and qualitatively from their quasi-static counterparts. Dynamic increase factors of 1.13 and 1.20 were observed on the peak resistance and initial stiffness, respectively. A single-degree-of-freedom model was developed and validated against the experimental test results, where it was found to accurately predict the displacement–time histories of the specimens until failure.

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)0.001
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Analysis of Composite MaterialsFrench-language works237,207