Design Guidance for Point-Supported CLT Floors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) has gained popularity in recent years as a sustainable and cost-effective alternative to traditional construction materials. The crosswise layup in CLT provides two-way resistance, which makes CLT a suitable choice for point-supported applications. In this system, the panels are directly supported by columns, eliminating the need for beams and their connections, resulting in an increased free story height. In such applications, CLT punching shear resistance is one of the key properties and is directly related to the rolling shear strength of the lamellas. The factors influencing CLT punching shear resistance are either material-strength related or support-condition related and should be accounted for when designing point supported CLT floors. This study provides the results of 164 punching shear tests conducted on CLT panels sized 1.7 × 1.8 m, 1.5 × 1.8 m, and 1.5 × 1.5 m, identifying the impact of column location; CLT provider, lamella species and grade; and support geometry. Adopting an appropriate shear stress distribution model is crucial for punching shear design of CLT floors; therefore, a comparison between the results from the plane beam equation, shear analogy method, and transformed composite section method is presented in this study.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".