Brittle failure of cross-laminated timber at connections with self-tapping screws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is becoming increasingly popular in construction, but its crosswise layup structure leads to distinct brittle failure modes compared to solid timber or glulam. Self-tapping screws (STS) are widely used as fasteners in timber construction and typically exhibit ductile failure when loaded laterally. However, when screws are installed at an angle, brittle failure modes may become critical, influencing design. Although the 2024 edition of the Canadian Standard for Engineering Design in Wood (CSA O86) includes provisions for connections with STS, there is limited guidance for estimating the resistance of CLT connections under brittle failure conditions. In this study, experimental and analytical investigations were conducted to examine the brittle failure modes and load-carrying capacities of CLT connections with STS. In the experimental phase, uniaxial tension tests were conducted on CLT connections with STS installed at a 45º angle. A total of 18 test series were performed, encompassing various connection layouts that considered CLT lay-up, screw penetration length, edge distance of the connection, and screw arrangements. Following the experimental phase, an analytical investigation was carried out on available test data to evaluate the predictive ability and limitations of current models for brittle failure in CLT. Based on these findings, a new approach for predicting brittle failure in CLT connections with inclined STS was proposed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".