Cyclic Testing of High-Capacity CLT Shear Walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional cross-laminated timber (CLT) shear walls often use commercial hold-downs and shear brackets with small-diameter fasteners that limit their lateral capacities. By using higher capacity hold-down connections with large diameter dowels, bolts, or mixed angle screws, a CLT shear wall’s strength and stiffness can be significantly improved. This experimental study assessed the performance of CLT shear walls using high-capacity hold-down and shear key connections. A total of six full-scale, five-ply cantilever CLT shear walls were cyclically tested to evaluate their strength, stiffness, and hysteretic behavior. The specimens had three height-to-width aspect ratios (0.52, 1.3, and 3.3) and two hold-down fastener types (bolts and mixed angle screws). All six wall specimens exhibited significantly higher strength and initial stiffness when compared to previously tested conventional CLT shear walls. Four of the six specimens exhibited ductile behavior through yielding of their hold-down fasteners. However, the two long walls buckled prematurely, highlighting a possible failure mode for CLT shear walls with significant in-plane loading. A maximum system overstrength factor of 2.0 was observed for the walls with mixed angle screw hold-downs, and the overstrength values reduced with increasing aspect ratios. The three walls with bolted hold-downs were not tested to failure due to the longest wall buckling and the other two specimens reaching the test setup’s maximum allowable drifts of 4.5% and 6.0% for the 2.6 m–tall and 6.6 m–tall walls, respectively. Although post peak behavior was not reached, high local ductility demands of 14 and 21 were observed in the bolted connections. Therefore, their ultimate overstrength factors were not found, but the test results indicate an overstrength of 2.7 or greater can occur due to significant “rope effect” of the bolts and their excellent local ductility capacity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".