The appropriacy of the analytical models for calculating the shear capacity of cross-laminated timber (CLT) under out-of-plane bending
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rolling shear, an inherent property of cross-laminated timber (CLT) due to the weak shear strength of cross layers, is always the determinant of load-bearing capacity for short-span CLT members subjected to out-of-plane bending. Many analytical models were developed to calculate the shear capacity of CLT members. Because of the difficulty to precisely model the complicated shear failure mechanisms, however, no model was universally accepted. This paper aims to study the appropriacy of the commonly used analytical models, namely, composite beam theory, shear analogy method, Gamma method, and simple beam theory, by tests and analytical calculations. A composite beam theory-based simplified method was proposed. Three-point loading tests for the short-span CLT panels with 3 and 5 layers were conducted, and the shear capacities of the test specimens were calculated using the above-mentioned analytical methods. Shear strength and modulus of cross layers of the test specimens, which were used as the inputs for calculating the shear capacities, were tested by modified planar shear method. By comparing the calculation results obtained from different analytical models and the test results as well, it can be concluded that: (1) composite beam theory, shear analogy method, and the proposed simplified method give almost the same calculation results, therefore, the proposed simplified method can be used as the replacement for the other models; (2) Gamma method is more appropriate for calculating the shear capacity in case the input shear strength is determined by planar shear test; (3) the simple beam theory that is used in CSA O86 provides significantly lower shear capacity predictions than those obtained by the other methods.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".