FIRE RESISTANCE TESTING OF CLT-CONCRETE COMPOSITE FLOOR SLABS UTILIZING SELF-TAPPING SCREWS AS SHEAR CONNECTORS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In massive production, mass timber sections made of engineered wood, such as cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels, accelerated the pace of the construction of tall wood buildings in North America in the past few years.However, more stringent fire safety measures are applicable to tall timber buildings.Most critically, floor systems in mass timber buildings can be made more robust, span longer distances and exhibit enhanced fire resistance by adding a top layer of concrete to allow a timber-concrete composite (TCC) floor system when adequate shear connections are utilized.This paper presents the experimental results of the fire resistance tests of two full-size, one-way TCC floor slabs that utilized self-tapping screws (STS) as shear connectors.The main objective of this new experimental study is to investigate the enhancement of the fire performance when designing a CLT panel as a TCC floor assembly through achieving the required composite action with a top concrete layer at the interface between the two materials.Test results show that a minimum fire resistance of two hours required by applicable building codes for mid-rise residential buildings has been achieved for CLT floor panel by designing it as a TCC floor assembly, taking advantage of the composite action activated by the utilization of 45-degree inclined STS as shear connectors.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".