EVALUATION OF THE STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF SHEAR WALLS BUILT WITH MULTI-LAYER COMPOSITE LAMINATED PANELS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An innovative multi-layer composite laminated panel (CLP), comparable to CLT, has been developed by combining Laminated Strand Lumber (LSL) and dimension lumber to overcome the rolling shear failure while maintaining high mechanical performance and the aesthetic appearance of natural wood.Experimental investigations have been conducted to assess the lateral resistance of CLP connections using self-tapping screws, as well as full-scale CLP shearwalls with varying connection layouts to achieve the target kinematic wall behaviour under both monotonic and cyclic loading.The findings indicate that incorporating Laminated Strand Lumber (LSL) in the laminations has a substantial impact on the mechanical properties of the connections.Replacing lumber with Laminated Strand Lumber (LSL) in the core layer exhibited a remarkable increase in stiffness and strength, and tended to fail in a ductile manner, while the utilisation of LSL in face layers enhanced stiffness and strength, but reduced ductility.Furthermore, the shear wall layout and the number of self-tapping screws in each connection were found to dramatically affect the overall structural performance of the shear wall.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".