Equivalent-frame model for elastic behaviour of cross-laminated timber walls with openings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An equivalent-frame model (EFM) applicable to cross-laminated timber (CLT) shear walls with window or door openings was developed. Two layouts were considered: hold-downs (HDs) placed at both ends of each wall segment or only at the ends of the wall. The model is the first of its kind to be proposed for CLT shear walls subject to lateral loading. Numerical modelling was performed to compare the global elastic stiffness and internal actions obtained from the EFM and a two-dimensional model using area elements. Comparisons between the two models and with published experimental results were undertaken. A reasonable fit was found between the models for the global elastic stiffness and tensile load in the HD. However, larger discrepancies were obtained for the shear load and bending moment in the top lintel. A study of the effect of openings on the base shear showed a higher reduction in base shear for higher slenderness ratios for both the wall segment and lintel. Little to no significant difference was found between using the single and double HDs. Reasonable agreement was found between the results of the proposed model and experimental tests conducted by other researchers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".