Behavior of Plank (Tongue and Groove) Wood Decking under Uniformly Distributed Loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental program was undertaken at the University of Ottawa’s structural laboratory to investigate the behavior of plank decking under uniformly distributed loads. Nondestructive and destructive tests were conducted on plank decking systems to investigate their stiffness and failure mode characteristics. The study showed that the established deflection coefficients used to check the deflection of plank decking under balanced uniformly distributed loads can be conservatively used to estimate the stiffness of the simple span, two-span continuous, and controlled random layup patterns. It was also found that a deflection coefficient of 0.60 would be suitable for the combination simple and two-span continuous layup. Under unbalanced loading on two-span continuous layups, it was found that the deflection coefficient of 0.42 was nonconservative and that a more appropriate value to use in this case would be 0.60. The failure mode of a controlled random layup decking system under a uniformly distributed load was found to be consistent with the failure observed for simple span. The assumption of basing the capacity of the controlled random layup on the capacity of simple span layup seems appropriate.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".