EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH ON POINT-SUPPORTED CLT PANELS: PHASE 1: ROLLING SHEAR STRENGTH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rolling shear strength is one of the key design parameters for point-supported cross-laminated timber (CLT) flat-slab system where the panels are directly supported by columns without any beams.The specified rolling shear strength of CLT in the current Canadian design standard could be conservative estimates considering the variability in wood species, stress grade, thickness of lamellas, layups and grain orientations.To address these gaps in knowledge for the North American market, a Post + Plank research project is being undertaken by Fast+Epp structural engineers in collaborations with the University of Northern British Columbia.In the first phase of the project, presented herein, CLT rolling shear strength under in-plane shear loading was evaluated.A total of 330 specimens (11 series with 30 replicate each, sized 100 mm (width) × 300 mm (length) were tested.The parameters varied were thickness: 3-ply of 89 mm and 105 mm, and 5-ply of 139 mm and 175mm with multiple species and fabricators, and both visual and machine stress graded CLT.The mode of failure was crack development along the growth ring.The results show that the mean rolling shear strength of various Canadian CLT species was between 0.94 MPa to 1.8 MPa.Although thin layers exhibited relatively higher rolling shear strength, these differences were found not to be statistically significant.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".