Structural performance of adhesively bonded and hybrid screw-adhesive CLT panel-to-panel floor joints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels are increasingly used in floor construction with the individual panels connected with self-tapping screws (STS) through surface spline or butt joints. These joints provide limited rotational stiffness in the out-of-plane direction. An alternative is the proprietary TS3™ technology which uses adhesive bonding to create near-rigid joints, which allow to better utilize the two-way resistance of CLT panels. However, TS3 joints fail in a brittle manner. The objective of the study presented herein was to evaluate the performance of STS and TS3 joints and to explore whether a hybrid solution is a viable alternative. To achieve this objective, screwed, TS3, and hybrid TS3-screw joints in the major and minor strength directions of CLT panels were investigated using out-of-plane three-point and four-point bending and in-plane shear tests. These tests demonstrated that the TS3 joints in the minor strength axis achieved similar effective bending stiffness and strengths like CLT panels, STS joints exhibited ductile behaviour, and although the STS in the hybrid solution could not prevent the brittle failure of the adhesive bond, they provided a secondary resistance mechanism after TS3 failure. • Adhesive bonding provides high rotational stiffness in CLT panel-to-panel floor joints. • Adhesive bonding in the minor-strength-axis provides similar strengths like CLT panels. • Hybrid screwed-glued joints provide a secondary resistance mechanism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".