MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396571970 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2023-0442

Fire behaviour of damaged wood–steel–wood beam connections retrofitted with self-tapping screws — experimental study

2024· article· en· W4396571970 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Mohamed Hegazi, Osama Salem

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire effects on concrete materials
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLakehead University
KeywordsTappingBeam (structure)Fire resistanceStructural engineeringEngineeringForensic engineeringMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceComposite materialMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This experimental study aimed to investigate the structural fire behaviour of damaged glulam beam connections retrofitted using self-tapping screws (STS). Four full-size glulam beam-end bolted connections with wood–steel–wood connection configurations using four or six bolts arranged in two different bolt patterns were examined. All connections were retrofitted using STS after being deliberately damaged through physical testing until failure. In a subsequent stage, the retrofitted connections were experimentally tested under standard fire exposure while subjected to the maximum design load of the weakest, undamaged, unreinforced connection configuration. The influence of the application of STS in terms of preventing wood-splitting propagation and maintaining reasonable fire resistance for the retrofitted connections was experimentally investigated and proven in this study. Results show that the retrofitted glulam beam connections maintained a minimum of approximately 67% of the failure time of identical but undamaged, unreinforced connections under standard fire exposure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicFire effects on concrete materialsFrench-language works237,207