MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental evaluation of mass timber composite panel connections: screw-glued, glue pressed, and SHARP metal

2025· article· en· W4417256236 on OpenAlexafffund
Tyler Hull, Emily Ying Yang Chan, Daniel Lacroix

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Structures · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of WaterlooNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsSimpson Strong-Tie
KeywordsStiffnessShear (geology)Composite numberStress (linguistics)Shear stressGLUEShear strength (soil)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current paper investigates the performance of three glue-pressed, five screw-glued, and one SHARP metal plate shear connection configurations under monotonic loading to characterize the overall behaviour and structural properties, and evaluate the suitability of these connections for use in mass timber composite (MTC) panels. Two adhesives, polyurethane (PUR), and phenol-resorcinol-formaldehyde (PRF), were used for glue-pressing and two adhesives, PL Premium Max (PL) and PUR, were used for screw-gluing. On average, the maximum shear stress for glued connections (PL, PUR, and PRF) ranged from 4.17 MPa – 5.90 MPa, while the SHARP plate configurations had an average maximum shear stress of 1.32 MPa. Screw-glued specimens with PL Premium Max exhibited the most consistent behaviour across all the configurations, indicating good repeatability and gap-filling capabilities. The average maximum shear stress for the glue-pressed specimens (PUR and PRF) was consistently above 5.0 MPa and had higher average stiffnesses than the screw-glued PL Premium Max configuration, albeit with greater stiffness variability. All screw-glued connection configurations achieved comparable average maximum shear stress (4.37 MPa – 5.20 MPa). Both screw-glued PUR configurations (150 mm and 300 mm screw spacing) had higher stiffnesses than the PL Premium Max connections; however, larger stiffness variability was also observed. Laminated veneer lumber also showed to be a promising material for the web, with an average maximum shear stress of 5.20 MPa and comparable stiffnesses to the other glue-pressed PUR and PRF configurations with glulam webs. An initial low-stiffness region (initial slip) was observed in over half of the glued specimens and was attributed to small initial movements of the specimen within the test setup. When applied to a representative 10 m long CLT-glulam ribbed panel, all connection configurations achieved near full composite action between the elements (>96 %). Overall, all the connections studied herein showed promising potential for long-span MTC panels in terms of stiffness, strength, and constructability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering StructuresSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207