MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405074216 · doi:10.15376/biores.20.1.737-764

Numerical study of I-joists with wood-based corrugated panel web

2024· article· en· W4405074216 on OpenAlexaff
Abdessamad Jiloul, Pierre Blanchet, Clément Boudaud

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration and Dynamic Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoistStructural engineeringOriented strand boardFinite element methodDiagonalBendingShear (geology)Materials scienceFailure mode and effects analysisTension (geology)Corrugated fiberboardComposite materialEngineeringCompression (physics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oriented strand board (OSB) panels are widely used as the best web solution for wooden I-joists. Many previous studies have focused on testing various new web materials, but few have examined the contribution of other web shapes to the I-joists’ behavior. The use of corrugated wood-based panels as I-joist web has been investigated. The aim of this study was to analyze the sensitivity of the joist in bending tests to the elastic properties of the corrugated web using a numerical approach with the finite element method. Joists with a corrugated web were manufactured and tested in long- and short-span bending tests and compared to traditional I-joists with an OSB web. The results obtained were encouraging. Results show that the in-plane shear modulus is the most critical elastic property in the behavior of the joist and is estimated at 1300 MPa to reproduce the same behavior of the corrugated web joist as that experimentally tested. The numerical approach also enabled determination of the corrugated web’s shear failure mode. This mode of failure manifested itself as interactive buckling, followed by the creation of diagonal tension lines.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicVibration and Dynamic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207