Evaluation of the Out-of-Plane Shear Properties of Cross-Laminated Timber
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The out-of-plane shear properties of cross-laminated timber (CLT) substantially influence the overall mechanical properties of CLT. Various testing methods and theories related to these properties have recently been developed. The effects of the number of layers (three and five layers) and testing method (short-span three- and four-point bending tests) on the out-of-plane shear properties of CLT were evaluated. The out-of-plane shear strength values were calculated based on different theories for comparison. The failure mode in the short-span four-point bending (FPB) method was mainly the rolling shear (RS) failure in the cross layers, indicating that the FPB method was appropriate to evaluate the RS strength of CLT. The out-of-plane shear capacity obtained using the three-point bending (TPB) method was higher than that tested by the FPB method. The testing methods significantly influenced the out-of-plane shear capacity of the three-layer specimens but not that of the five-layer specimens. With an increase in the number of layers, the out-of-plane shear strength of the specimens decreased by 24%. A linear correlation was found among the shear strength values obtained from different theories.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it