The influence of the opening size on the shear performance of the cross-laminated timber (CLT) walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-laminated timber is a wood product with excellent fire resistance and mechanical performance that is often used in tiny houses. Using the ASTM standard E564, the shear performance of cross-laminated timber wall panels, with and without openings, were investigated in this study. The specimens were made of spruce-pine-fir IIc lumber and installed on a test platform using high-strength bolts passing through them. This connection mode limited the displacements obtained in the test, primarily the shear displacements and rocking displacements. By comparing the static load test data of the three specimens with openings and the one without an opening, it was found that openings reduced the shear strength and shear stiffness. For the same sized rectangular opening, the shear stiffness of the cross-laminated timber panel was less when the wider side was horizontal (normal to the direction of the applied force). The shear stiffness of the cross-laminated timber wall panels can be effectively improved by reinforcing the areas near the openings with metal sheets. With reinforcement, the shear strength did not change drastically, but the damage to the cross-laminated timber wall panels was significantly reduced.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".