Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT\nThe integrity of the roof system is essential for ensuring the safety of inhabitants and preventing excessive damage to light-frame wood structures. The uplift capacity of fastened roof panels has been investigated using experimental tests and numerical models, where monotonic uniform static pressures are often applied to the roof panel models. The verification is needed for the adequacy of using static uniformly distributed pressure representing the wind load. Moreover, the uncertainty of nail withdrawal behaviour has not been included in existing numerical models, and the effect due to construction errors has not been addressed rationally.\nA nonlinear Finite Element model is developed in this study to incorporate the nail withdrawal uncertainty in terms of maximum withdrawal force, initial stiffness, proportional limit, and the displacement at maximum force of the nail withdrawal behaviour. This model is used to investigate the statistical characteristics of the panel uplift capacity. The effect of spatial varying wind load is discussed by using the pressure coefficient obtained from wind tunnel model test at the Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel at the University of Western Ontario.\nFurthermore, the impact of construction error is investigated, in terms of missing nail effects, with first-hand survey information. The detailed survey was carried out at the IRLBH (The Insurance Research Lab for Better Homes) facility to inspect the quality of construction, specifically for the statistical information of missing nails on roof panels. Finally, the evaluated statistical characterization of panel uplift capacity is used for the reliability analysis of a typical panel considering or ignoring the missing nail effects.\nBoth code specified pressure-gust coefficient from NBCC (2005) and the peak pressure coefficients obtained from wind tunnel test are used. Results suggested that the nonlinear pushover analysis using the proposed nonlinear Finite Element model is adequate for estimating the panel uplift capacity. A more stringent fastening schedule with a spacing of 150 mm for the edges and intermediate supports is suggested for the construction of light frame wood houses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".