Evaluation of in-plane shear performance of CLT using the asymmetric four-point bending test method and detailed examination of the method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The use of cross-laminated timber (CLT) and laminated veneer lumber (LVL) in wooden structures including non-residential, tall and large buildings is increasing, even though they might be subjected to important horizontal forces. The asymmetric four-point bending test method, originally used for lumber and glulam, can be used to evaluate the in-plane shear performance of CLT. This test may have led to bending failure in the case of the CLT specimens. In this study, asymmetric four-point bending tests were conducted to evaluate appropriate shear strength and modulus. Span ratio of 0.5–1.0 is recommended for shear failure to occur as the latter is less affected by compression force. The shear strength exhibited a positive correlation with the ratio of the perpendicular layer, suggesting that the shear strength can be easily estimated. The diagonal measurement of shear deformation is a convenient method because it has less effect on deformation due to the direction of the grain.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".