# Investigating Factors Influencing Rolling Shear Performance of Australian CLT Feedstock

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

- The effect of the equilibrium moisture content (EMC) on RS properties;
- The effect of MOE on RS properties;
- The effect of aspect ratio on RS properties;
- The RS properties of three major Australian softwoods (southern pine, radiata pine and hoop pine) examining the effect of species and density;
- The effect of knots on the of RS properties;
- The effect of test specimen projection length.

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Sample Preparation

#### 2.2. Measurement and Analysis Techniques

_{r}) and the apparent RS modulus (G

_{r}) were calculated using Equations (1) and (2), respectively, as proposed by Wang et al. [1].

#### 2.3. Details of the Key Factors Considered in the Current Study

#### 2.3.1. Equilibrium Moisture Content (EMC)

#### 2.3.2. MOE (Parallel to Grain)

#### 2.3.3. Aspect Ratio (AR)

#### 2.3.4. Species

^{3}for radiata pine, southern pine and hoop pine, respectively. To minimise the effect of external factors, test boards were selected with an MOE targeting 10,000 ± 1000 MPa and free of defects such as knots, splits and resin shakes.

#### 2.3.5. Knots

#### 2.3.6. Projection Length

#### 2.3.7. Statistical Analysis

^{2}value, effect of the board from which the samples were sourced from and p-value (at 5% level of significance). When there were more than two entities (e.g., more than two species) which affects the outcome (rolling shear modulus and strength), pairwise t-test was conducted to determine how different the outcome values are from one entity to the other.

## 3. Results and Discussion

#### 3.1. Effect of EMC

#### 3.1.1. Failure Modes and Load vs. Displacement Curve

#### 3.1.2. Statistical Analysis

_{r}—shear strength, G

_{r}—shear moduli).

^{2}value of only 10.53% was obtained. This is also evident from the high sum of square (SS) value of the error term (6.1 out of a total of 6.81). When the effect of board is considered, the R

^{2}value increased to 64.37% and hence, the error in the model is reduced significantly (SE = 0.29 and SS

_{error}= 2.43). Nevertheless, the p-value remains less than 0.05, confirming the significant effect of moisture content on the RS strength. The p-value of the board is also less than 0.05 and hence, affects the RS strength.

^{2}value is 66.88% for RS modulus (using general linear model) without considering the effect of boards (Table 3 (G

_{r})). Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) showed that both RS strength and modulus were significantly different between 8, 12 and 16% MC. By comparing Table 3 (f

_{r}) and (G

_{r}), it can be observed that the sum of squares (SS) of the error term is more than the effect of moisture content for RS strength, whereas the opposite behaviour is observed for RS modulus. Nevertheless, considering the effect of boards reduces the error in the model and an improved R

^{2}value of 89.89% is achieved. Figure 5 display how the boards affect the mean RS modulus with the increase in MC from 8 to 16%.

#### 3.2. Effect of MOE

_{r}and G

_{r}, respectively.

#### 3.2.1. Failure Modes

#### 3.2.2. Statistical Analysis

_{r}and G

_{r}, respectively.

_{r}), the p-value associated with boards, from which the samples were made, is very close to zero. Thus, the boards have a significant effect on the RS strength. The possible reasons for this could be the variation in annual ring orientation of the boards and the location of the boards within the tree.

_{r})). The radiata pine samples yielded the same conclusions, as observed in Figure 9b since the RS moduli were scattered around the mean value across the whole MOE range.

#### 3.3. Aspect Ratio

_{r}and G

_{r}, respectively.

#### 3.3.1. Failure Modes and Load vs. Displacement Curve

#### 3.3.2. Rolling Shear Properties (Strength and Modulus)

^{2}value for this case is only 17.19% and hence, the p-value alone cannot explain the true effect of AR is this regard.

_{r}and G

_{r}, respectively.

#### 3.4. Species and Knots

_{r}and G

_{r}, respectively.

#### 3.4.1. Species

^{2}= 10.5%) between density and RS modulus was found for southern pine. However, almost no relationship was observed between density and RS modulus (R

^{2}= 2.2%) for radiata pine. On the contrary, a very weak positive correlation was found between RS strength and density for both southern pine and radiata pine with an R

^{2}value of 18.5%. These results indicate that the density does not influence the RS properties, which confirm that the use of lower density and MOE timber in the cross-layers of cross laminated timer (CLT) panels will not significantly reduce the performance of the panel under loading due to the contribution of RS. A positive relationship between density and RS modulus was reported in some research [6,15,20], whilst a somewhat weak correlation was reported in other [5].

#### 3.4.2. Knots

#### 3.5. Projection Length

_{r}and G

_{r}, respectively.

#### 3.5.1. Failure Modes and Load–Displacement Curves

#### 3.5.2. Statistical Analysis

^{2}value suggests that only 13.7 and 16.61% of the behaviour can be explained while comparing projection length vs RS properties, resulting in large sums of square for the error term. As discussed previously, differences in boards from which the samples were made had a significant effect on the results, potentially due to variation in growth ring orientation and the age of the tree used for the sawn boards. Accordingly, in Table 10, the effect of the boards is considered in the general linear regression which improve the R

^{2}value to 93.78 and 84.60% for RS strength and modulus, respectively. By comparing the p-values, while considering the effect of boards, it is evident that projection length does affect the RS strength significantly (p-value close to zero). However, this effect is much less pronounced on the RS modulus (p-value = 0.084).

## 4. Conclusions

- Results showed that timber species and moisture content (MC) significantly affect the shear strength (f
_{r}) and moduli (G_{r}). Hoop pine has the highest RS strength and moduli followed by southern pine and radiata pine. Mean RS modulus for radiata pine, southern pine and hoop pine samples were 74.7 MPa, 87.1 MPa and 99.7 MPa, respectively, whilst mean RS strength values were 2.6 MPa, 3.1 MPa and 3.7 MPa, respectively. When the moisture content (MC) value is increased from 8% to 16%, there is a reduction in the RS modulus. However, the maximum RS strength is detected when the MC level is at 12%. - Presence of knots improved the RS properties (both strength and modulus) for all three tested species.
- Aspect ratio affects rolling shear strength significantly; however, its effect on rolling shear modulus is not significant.
- Specimen density and MOE showed very weak correlation with both RS modulus and strength, indicating that RS properties are independent of MOE and density for the species tested, within the density and MOE ranges tested. However, it can be noted that the parent boards from which the test specimens originated have a significant impact on the results, even for the same species. This may be associated with the variation in growth ring orientation and age of the tree from which the board were sourced.
- While our study focused on flat sawn boards, the growth ring orientation may differ across specimens. Therefore, further investigation could be conducted to investigate the effect of growth ring orientation on the rolling shear properties.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Wang, Z.; Zhou, J.; Dong, W.; Yao, Y.; Gong, M. Influence of technical characteristics on the rolling shear properties of cross laminated timber by modified planar shear tests. Maderas Cienc. Tecnol.
**2018**, 20, 469–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Li, X.; Ashraf, M.; Subhani, M.; Kafle, B.; Kremer, P. Resistance of Cross Laminated Timber Members Under Axial Loading—A Review of Current Design Rules. In CIGOS 2019, Innovation for Sustainable Infrastructure: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Geotechnics, Civil Engineering Works and Structures; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 179–184. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.; Ashraf, M.; Subhani, M.; Kremer, P.; Kafle, B.; Ghabraie, K. Experimental and numerical study on bending properties of heterogeneous lamella layups in cross laminated timber using Australian Radiata Pine. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2020**, 247, 118525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kumar, C.; Li, X.; Subhani, M.; Shanks, J.; Dakin, T.; McGavin, R.; Ashraf, M.A. A review of factors influencing rolling shear in CLT and test methodology. J. Test. Eval.
**2021**, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Aicher, S.; Christian, Z.; Hirsch, M. Rolling shear modulus and strength of beech wood laminations. Holzforschung
**2016**, 70, 773–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ehrhart, T.; Brandner, R. Rolling shear: Test configurations and properties of some European soft- and hardwood species. Eng. Struct.
**2018**, 172, 554–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dahl, K.B.; Malo, K.A. Linear shear properties of spruce softwood. Wood Sci. Technol.
**2009**, 43, 499–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Neuhaus, F. Elastizitätszahlen von Fichtenholz in Abhängigkeit von der Holzfeuchtigkeit. Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Institut für konstruktiven Ingenieurbau, Mitteilung Nr. 81-8, 1981. RQ: 1981.
- Görlacher, R. Ein Verfahren zur Ermittlung des Rollschubmoduls von Holz. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod.
**2002**, 60, 317–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hassel, B.I.; Berard, P.; Modén, C.S.; Berglund, L.A. The single cube apparatus for shear testing—Full-field strain data and finite element analysis of wood in transverse shear. Compos. Sci. Technol.
**2009**, 69, 877–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mestek, P. Punktgestützte Flächentragwerke aus Brettsperrholz (BSP)–Schubbemessung unter Berücksichtigung von Schubverstärkungen. Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Flaig, M. Biegeträger aus Brettsperrholz bei Beanspruchung in Plattenebene; KIT Scientific Publishing: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2013; Volume 26. [Google Scholar]
- Franzoni, L.; Lebée, A.; Lyon, F.; Foret, G. Bending behavior of regularly spaced CLT panels. In Proceedings of the WCTE 2016—World Conference on Timber Engineering, Vienna, Austria, 22–25 August 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Sikora, K.S.; McPolin, D.O.; Harte, A.M. Effects of the thickness of cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels made from Irish Sitka spruce on mechanical performance in bending and shear. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2016**, 116, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Bendtsen, B. Rolling shear characteristics of nine structural softwoods. For. Prod. J.
**1976**, 26, 51–56. [Google Scholar] - Zhou, Q.; Gong, M.; Chui, Y.H.; Mohammad, M. Measurement of rolling shear modulus and strength of cross laminated timber fabricated with black spruce. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2014**, 64, 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ukyo, S.; Shindo, K.; Miyatake, A. Evaluation of rolling shear modulus and strength of Japanese cedar cross-laminated timber (CLT) laminae. J. Wood Sci.
**2019**, 65, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Li, M. Evaluating rolling shear strength properties of cross-laminated timber by short-span bending tests and modified planar shear tests. J. Wood Sci.
**2017**, 63, 331–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, M.; Dong, W.; Lim, H. Influence of Lamination Aspect Ratios and Test Methods on Rolling Shear Strength Evaluation of Cross-Laminated Timber. J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
**2019**, 31, 04019310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Fellmoser, P.; Blaß, H.J. Influence of rolling shear modulus on strength and stiffness of structural bonded timber elements. In Proceedings of the CIB-W18 Meeting, Edinburgh, UK, 31 August–3 September 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Aicher, S.; Dill-Langer, G. Basic considerations to rolling shear modulus in wooden boards. Otto-Graf-J.
**2000**, 11, 157–165. [Google Scholar] - Zhou, Q. Develoment of Evaluation Methodology for Rolling Shear Properties in Cross Laminated Timber (CLT). Master’s Thesis, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ehrhart, T.; Brandner, R. Test configurations for determining rolling shear properties with focus on cross laminated timber: A critical review. In Properties, Testing and Design of Cross Laminated Timber; Shaker-Verlag GmbH: Herzogenrath, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Chui, Y. Simultaneous evaluation of bending and shear moduli of wood and the influence of knots on these parameters. Wood Sci. Technol.
**1991**, 25, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jakobs, A. Zur Berechnung von Brettlagenholz mit starrem und nachgiebigem Verbund unter plattenartiger Belastung mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Rollschubes und der Drillweichheit. Ph.D. Thesis, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Feichter, I. Spannungs-und Traglastberechnungen an Ausgewählten Problemen der Holz-Massivbauweise in Brettsperrholz. Master’s Thesis, Graz Universtiy of Technology, Strya, Austria, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- BS EN 16351:2015; Timber Structures. Cross Laminated Timber. Requirements. British Standards Institution: Milton Keynes, UK, 2015.
- Ehrhart, T.; Brandner, R.; Schickhofer, G.; Frangi, A. Rolling Shear Properties of some European Timber Species with Focus on Cross Laminated Timber (CLT): Test Configuration and Parameter Study. In Proceedings of the 2nd Meeting of the International Network on Timber Engineering Research, Šibenik, Croatia, 24–27 August 2015; Görlacher, R., Ed.; Timber Scientific Publishing, KIT Holzbau und Baukonstruktionen: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Denzler, J.K.; Glos, P. Determination of shear strength values according to EN 408. Mater. Struct.
**2007**, 40, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cao, Y.; Street, J.; Mitchell, B.; To, F.; Dubien, J.; Seale, R.; Shmulsky, R. Effect of Knots on Horizontal Shear Strength in Southern Yellow Pine. BioResources
**2018**, 13, 4509–4520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Cao, Y.; Street, J.; Li, M.; Lim, H. Evaluation of the effect of knots on rolling shear strength of cross laminated timber (CLT). Constr. Build. Mater.
**2019**, 222, 579–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, M.; Lam, F.; Li, Y. Evaluating rolling shear strength properties of CLT by torsional shear tests and bending tests. In Proceedings of the World Conference in Timber Engineering 2014, Quebec City, QC, Canada, 10–14 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Ettelaei, A.; Taoum, A.; Shanks, J.; Nolan, G. Rolling Shear Properties of Cross-Laminated Timber Made from Australian Plantation Eucalyptus nitens under Planar Shear Test. Forests
**2022**, 13, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - XLam Australia Pty Ltd. XLam Australia Pty Ltd. XLam Australian cross laminated timber Panel structural guide. In XLam Australia Design Guide V1; XLam Australia Pty Ltd.: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Paradis, S.; Brancheriau, L.; Baillères, H. Bing: Beam Identification by Non destructive Grading. 2017. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314192422_Bing_Beam_Identification_by_Non_destructive_Grading (accessed on 18 December 2022).
- Baillères, H.; Hopewell, G.P.; Boughton, G. MOE and MOR Assessment Technologies for Improving Graded Recovery Of exotic Pines in Australia; Project no: PNB040-0708; Forest & Wood Products Australia: Melbourne, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- EN 408:2003; Timber Structures. Structural Timber and Glued Laminated Timber. Determination of Some Physical and Mechanical Properties. British Standard Institution: London, UK, 2003; pp. 1–33.
- Montgomery, D.C. Design and Analysis of experiments; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 2.**Sample preparation for aspect ratio (

**a**) 3.0, (

**b**) 4.5 and (

**c**) 6.75 for Southern and Radiata pine.

**Figure 5.**Boxplot showing effect of moisture content on RS strength (

**left**) and modulus (

**right**) of southern pine. The square in the boxplots shows the mean and different letter are from LSD test in the boxplots indicating the means between groups are significantly different (p-value equals 0.05).

**Figure 6.**Load vs. displacement curves for all tested samples, and relevant failure modes of the samples subjected to various moisture contents.

**Figure 7.**Rolling shear properties for various MOE groups, (

**a**) rolling shear strength, (

**b**) rolling shear modulus (southern pine).

**Figure 16.**Load vs displacement curves, and relevant failure modes of the samples due to various projection length.

Key Variable | Species | Cross-Section (mm × mm) | Projection Length (mm) | Target MGP MOE (MPa) | Nos. Samples |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Moisture content (8%, 12% and 16%) | Southern pine | 135 × 30 | 56.6 | 10,000 | 15 |

MOE (parallel to grain) | Radiata pine (Pinus radiata) | 135 × 30 | 56.6 | 7000–15,000 | 22 |

10,000 | 15 | ||||

Southern pine (Pinus caribaea/Pinus elliotti) | 135 × 30 | 56.6 | 6000 | 15 | |

7000 | 15 | ||||

8000 | 15 | ||||

9000 | 15 | ||||

10,000 | 15 | ||||

12,000 | 15 | ||||

Aspect ratio | Radiata pine | 90 × 30 | 79.1 | 10,000 | 15 |

135 × 20 | 36.5 | 10,000 | 15 | ||

Southern pine | 90 × 30 | 79.1 | 10,000 | 15 | |

135 × 20 | 36.5 | 10,000 | 15 | ||

Species | Radiata pine | 135 × 30 | 56.6 | 10,000 | 15 |

Southern pine | 10,000 | 15 | |||

Hoop pine (Araucaria cunninghamii) | 10,000 | 15 | |||

Knottiness | Radiata pine | 135 × 30 | 56.6 | 10,000 | 15 |

Southern pine | 10,000 | 15 | |||

Hoop pine | 10,000 | 15 | |||

Projection length | Southern pine | 135 × 30 | 0 | 10,000 | 7 |

20 | 10,000 | 7 | |||

56.6 | 10,000 | 15 |

**Table 2.**Rolling shear modulus (G

**) and strength (**

_{r}**f**) of southern pine with varying moisture content.

_{r}Mechanical Property | 8% f_{r} | 8% G_{r} | 12% f_{r} | 12% G_{r} | 16% f_{r} | 16% G_{r} |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Mean (MPa) | 2.93 | 95.01 | 3.20 | 80.60 | 2.61 | 60.66 |

CoV (%) | 13 | 10 | 10 | 16 | 9 | 11 |

5th percentile (MPa) | 2.42 | 84.22 | 2.64 | 61.38 | 2.31 | 50.44 |

Block | Standard Error (SE) | R^{2} | Sum of Squares (SS) | F-Value | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

f_{r} | Without considering the effect of board | 0.38 | 0.10 | MC (0.72), Error (6.1) | MC (4.94) | 0.032 |

Considering effect of board | 0.29 | 0.64 | MC (0.55), Board (3.67), Error (2.43) | MC (6.34), Board (3.02) | MC (0.018), Board (0.006) | |

G_{r} | Without considering the effect of board | 10.05 | 0.67 | MC (8513), Error (4215) | MC (84.82) | 0.000 |

Considering effect of board | 6.93 | 0.89 | MC (8095), Board (2867), Error (1348) | MC (168.11), Board (4.25) | MC (0.000), Board (0.001) |

MOE Group | 6 GPa | 7 GPa | 8 GPa | 10 GPa | 12 GPa | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

f_{r} | G_{r} | f_{r} | G_{r} | f_{r} | G_{r} | f_{r} | G_{r} | f_{r} | G_{r} | |

Mean (Mpa) | 3.31 | 97.90 | 3.06 | 98.87 | 3.22 | 85.65 | 3.05 | 87.12 | 3.36 | 98.52 |

CoV (%) | 15 | 24 | 22 | 15 | 19 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 13 | 10 |

5th percentile (Mpa) | 2.55 | 66.39 | 2.03 | 75.57 | 2.23 | 72.46 | 2.33 | 68.97 | 2.65 | 83.75 |

Block | Standard Error (SE) | R^{2} | Sum of Squares (SS) | F-Value | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

f_{r} | Without considering the effect of board | 0.55 | 0.002 | MOE (0.0425), Error (22.45) | MOE (0.14) | 0.711 |

Considering effect of board | 0.26 | 0.87 | MOE (0.029), Board (19.61), Error (2.84) | MOE (0.42), Board (8.85) | MOE (0.523), Board (0.000) | |

G_{r} | Considering effect of board | 13.7 | 0.61 | MOE (78.9), Board (11841), Error (7687) | MOE (0.42), Board (1.91) | MOE (0.520), Board (0.025) |

AR Group | AR 3.0 | AR 4.5 | AR 6.75 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

f_{r} | G_{r} | f_{r} | G_{r} | f_{r} | G_{r} | ||

Southern pine | Mean (MPa) | 2.70 | 85.54 | 3.05 | 87.12 | 3.25 | 88.72 |

CoV (%) | 15 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 13 | 26 | |

5th percentile (MPa) | 2.18 | 72.28 | 2.33 | 68.97 | 2.82 | 57.83 | |

Radiata pine | Mean (MPa) | 2.39 | 73.38 | 2.64 | 74.74 | 2.87 | 73.97 |

CoV (%) | 10 | 16 | 17 | 14 | 16 | 30 | |

5th percentile (MPa) | 1.96 | 67.45 | 1.79 | 68.43 | 2.08 | 66.61 |

Block | Standard Error (SE) | R^{2} | Sum of Squares (SS) | F-Value | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

f_{r} | Considering effect of board | 0.32 | 0.68 | AR (1.53), Board (4.92), Error (3.28) | AR (15.37), Board (4.49) | AR (0.000), Board (0.000) |

G_{r} | Considering effect of board | 16.89 | 0.17 | AR (98.8), Board (1875), Error (9408) | AR (0.35), Board (0.60) | AR (0.560), Board (0.817) |

Species Group | Radiata Pine | Southern Pine | Hoop Pine | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

f_{r} | G_{r} | f_{r} | G_{r} | f_{r} | G_{r} | ||

No knots | Mean (MPa) | 2.64 | 74.74 | 3.05 | 87.12 | 3.68 | 99.67 |

CoV (%) | 17 | 14 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.21 | 0.11 | |

5th percentile (MPa) | 1.79 | 61.71 | 2.33 | 68.97 | 2.34 | 84.93 | |

Knots | Mean (MPa) | 3.19 | 87.57 | 3.83 | 118.69 | 4.53 | 154.73 |

CoV (%) | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.22 | 0.16 | |

5th percentile (MPa) | 2.18 | 79.42 | 2.70 | 109.06 | 2.60 | 147.32 |

Projection Group | 0 mm | 20 mm | 57 mm | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

f_{r} | G_{r} | f_{r} | G_{r} | f_{r} | G_{r} | |

Mean (MPa) | 3.02 | 94.84 | 3.50 | 104.82 | 3.05 | 87.12 |

CoV (%) | 18 | 21 | 17 | 21 | 15 | 15 |

5th percentile (MPa) | 2.27 | 72.22 | 2.77 | 73.10 | 2.33 | 68.97 |

**Table 10.**Effect of projection length on the RS properties (southern pine) for f

_{r}and G

_{r}, respectively.

Block | Standard Error (SE) | R^{2} | Sum of Squares (SS) | F-Value | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

f_{r} | Without considering effect of board | 0.52 | 0.14 | PR (1.11), Error (7.0) | PR (2.06) | PR (0.15) |

Considering effect of board | 0.19 | 0.94 | PR (0.80), Board (7.53), Error (0.51) | PR (22.0), Board (16.05) | PR (0.000), Board (0.000) | |

G_{r} | Without considering effect of board | 17.13 | 0.17 | PR (1518), Error (7625) | PR (2.59) | PR (0.094) |

Considering effect of board | 10.03 | 0.85 | PR (349), Board (6979), Error (1408) | PR (3.47), Board (5.34) | PR (0.084), Board (0.002) |

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Kumar, C.; Faircloth, A.; Shanks, J.; McGavin, R.L.; Li, X.; Ashraf, M.; Subhani, M.
Investigating Factors Influencing Rolling Shear Performance of Australian CLT Feedstock. *Forests* **2023**, *14*, 711.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f14040711

**AMA Style**

Kumar C, Faircloth A, Shanks J, McGavin RL, Li X, Ashraf M, Subhani M.
Investigating Factors Influencing Rolling Shear Performance of Australian CLT Feedstock. *Forests*. 2023; 14(4):711.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f14040711

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Kumar, Chandan, Adam Faircloth, Jon Shanks, Robert L. McGavin, Xin Li, Mahmud Ashraf, and Mahbube Subhani.
2023. "Investigating Factors Influencing Rolling Shear Performance of Australian CLT Feedstock" *Forests* 14, no. 4: 711.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f14040711