Evaluation of the Out-of-Plane Shear Properties of Cross-Laminated Timber
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".