Post + Panel: Next Generation Point Supported CLT Floors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study provides an overview of the ongoing Post + Panel research program on point-supported cross-laminated timber (CLT) floors. Recent studies on rolling shear and punching shear have found that the capacity of CLT in shear may be higher than those specified in the standards. However, while there is a compelling case for higher point supported strengths, most tests have been completed outside of North America, and limited tests have been completed on point supported CLT panels. The work presented herein addresses this critical research need and consists of CLT rolling shear testing, CLT punching shear testing, and full-scale point-supported CLT floor testing. Rolling shear values are based on both short- and long-term testing including testing using both bend and inclined tests. Rolling shear strength amplification factors and typical stress distributions around columns are presented from previous research in various column configurations. The rolling shear strength was determined for CLT with lamellas of different species, grades, and aspect ratios. The results show that the mean rolling shear strength of CLT was between 0.9 and 1.8 MPa.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".