Performance of mass timber connections under simulated seismic and wind rates of loading: An experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the effects of simulated seismic and wind loading rates on the performance of mass timber connections. This study focuses on peak resistance as the primary performance parameter, which is associated with the duration-of-load (DOL) factors. T-tests were performed to evaluate whether the differences in peak resistance between specimens subjected to higher versus regular loading rates were statistically significant. Experimental work included monotonic tests and reversed cyclic tests on typical connections that were used in mass timber structures, namely spline joints, hold-down connections, angle brackets, and glued laminated timber (Glulam)-to-Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) diaphragm connections. For each configuration, two density-matched groups of specimens were tested: one under a regular rate of loading, failing within 2–10 min, and the other under a higher rate of loading, simulating seismic and wind conditions, with failure occurring within 1–10 s. Under higher loading rates, the average peak resistance increased by 6 %–10 % for spline joints and by 9 %–19 % for Glulam-to-CLT connections. In contrast, no increase was recorded for hold-down connections or angle brackets. Importantly, test observations confirmed that higher loading rates did not alter the failure modes of the connections. These findings highlight the significance of accounting for loading-rate effects in the design and evaluation of mass timber connections under seismic and wind loading conditions. • The effect of simulated seismic and wind loading rates on mass timber connections was experimentally investigated. • Monotonic and reversed cyclic tests were conducted to evaluate connection performance under different loading rates. • At higher loading rates, average peak resistance increased by 6 %–10 % for spline joints and 9 %–19 % for Glulam-to-CLT connections.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".