Mechanical Properties of Innovative Multi-layer Composite Laminated Panels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) possesses both good shape stability and the possible two-way force transfer ability due to its crosswise lamination. However, the transverse layers in CLT are prone to rolling shear failure under an out-of-plane load. An innovative multi-layer composite laminated panel (CLP) was developed by combining structural composite lumber (SCL) and dimension lumber to overcome the rolling shear failure while maintaining high mechanical performance and aesthetic appearance of natural wood. The mechanical properties of 5-layer CLP consisted of laminated strand lumber (LSL) and dimension lumber with different layups were evaluated by both static and modal tests. The results showed that the shear resistance, bending stiffness and moment resistance of CLP were up to 143%, 43% and 87% higher than their counterparts of regular CLT, respectively. The failure modes observed in both shear and bending tests indicated that the use of LSL in transverse layers could eliminate the potential rolling shear failure in CLT. With the lamination properties from components tests as inputs, the validity of shear analogy method was assessed by test results. The mechanical properties can be well predicted by shear analogy method except for the bending moment resistance of CLP and CLT with either rolling failure in the cross layer or tension failure in the bottom layer.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".