Comparison of Theoretical and Laboratory Out-of-Plane Shear Stiffness Values of Cross Laminated Timber Panels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lay-up of cross laminated timber (CLT) leads to significant differences in properties over its cross-section. Particularly the out-of-plane shear behavior of CLT is affected by the changes in shear moduli over the cross-section. Results from laboratory shear tests are used to evaluate the shear stiffness of 3- and 5-layer CLT panels in their major and minor strength direction. The results are compared to calculated shear stiffness values on evaluated single-layer properties as well as commonly used property ratios using the Timoshenko beam theory and the shear analogy method. Differences between the two calculation approaches are pointed out. The shear stiffness is highly sensitive to the ratio of the shear modulus parallel to the grain to the shear modulus perpendicular to the grain. The stiffness values determined from two test measurements are compared with the calculated results. The level of agreement is dependent on the number of layers in CLT and the property axis of the CLT panels.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".