MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410334567 · doi:10.1016/j.jobab.2025.04.002

Lateral resistance performance of wood-frame shear walls with wooden nail connections: Experimental and finite element analysis

2025· article· en· W4410334567 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shuo Wang, Jingkang Lin, Zhiyuan Chen, Fanxu Kong, Panpan Ma, Feibin Wang, Zeli Que

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioresources and Bioproducts · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKey Technologies Research and Development ProgramGraduate Research and Innovation Projects of Jiangsu Province
KeywordsFinite element methodStructural engineeringShear wallNail (fastener)Shear (geology)Frame (networking)Materials scienceEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern architecture and engineering increasingly favor timber structures due to their sustainability. Wooden nails, as eco-friendly alternatives to traditional metal connectors, offer promising potential for widespread adoption. This study analyzed the influence of various parameters on the shear performance of wooden nail connections through monotonic loading tests. Key factors examined included sheathing panel material (oriented strand board (OSB) and structural plywood (SP)), thickness (9.5 and 12 mm), as well as nail diameter (3.7 and 4.7 mm), spacing (50 and 100 mm), and cap configuration (with/without caps) on the mechanical behavior of the joints. Analyzing load-displacement curves and mechanical parameters (ultimate load, stiffness, ductility) reveals several key findings: nail cap design has minimal impact on shear performance compared to other factors; joints with SP sheathing panel material show significantly higher shear-bearing capacity than those with OSB. Stiffness and ductility vary across specimen groups, with group O9-4.7 (denoting OSB sheathing, 9.5 mm thickness, and 4.7 mm nail diameter) having the highest stiffness (1 332 N/mm) and group O12-4.7 (OSB sheathing, 12 mm thickness, and 4.7 mm nail diameter) showing superior ductility (3.47). Additionally, a comprehensive finite element (FE) simulation of full-size wood-frame shear walls using OpenSees software provides insights into the influence of sheathing panel form, material properties, and thickness on lateral resistance performance.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bioresources and BioproductsSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207