Dowel-Bearing Strength of Southern Pine Cross-Laminated Timber
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current method for estimating parallel-to-grain dowel bearing strength of cross-laminated timber (CLT) fasteners applied perpendicular to the face in the US adjusts the length of the fastener to account for the effect of cross-layers rather than modifying the dowel bearing strength. This method is counter to more-commonly used methods in Canada and Europe which adjust the dowel bearing strength of the CLT material and using the original length of the dowel. Currently, there are no experimental data supporting the use of an adjusted fastener length. This paper presented an alternative method for CLT dowel bearing strength assessment according to the US design code. The proposed method produced similar or slightly conservative dowel bearing strength values compared with the current US design method. Experimental results of dowel bearing strength were compared against the current design code, the proposed method, and European and Canadian codes. Standard test procedures were used to evaluate, stiffness, yield strength, 5% offset yield strength and ultimate strength. Greater mechanical properties were found for CLTs containing more parallel-to-grain layers, whereas lower mechanical properties were found for CLTs containing more perpendicular-to-grain layers. The current US dowel bearing strength method, the proposed method, and the European design code produced similar results, which were slightly conservative compared with the experimental values. The proposed dowel bearing strength equation is felt to be an improvement given the ease of use and similarity in form to other design formats.
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".