Effects of Load Sharing in Wood Tongue-and-Groove Plank Decking under Concentrated Loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tongue-and-groove plank wood decking is a product that is commonly used in post and beam timber construction to transfer gravity loads on roofs and floors. Little research or development has been done on plank decking since the 1950s and 1960s. An experimental program was undertaken at the University of Ottawa’s structural laboratory to better understand the behavior of plank decking under concentrated loads. Destructive tests were conducted on plank decking systems to investigate their failure mode characteristics and to quantify their capacity. The failure mode of a decking system under a concentrated load was consistent with a combination of failure in the decking boards and the tongue-and-groove joints. Significant load sharing was observed for plank decking under concentrated loads and it was found that the assumption of basing the design capacity on that of one board was invalid. Placing sheathing on top of a decking system to create a diaphragm action had a very significant and positive effect on both the stiffness and ultimate capacity of the decking system, which currently is ignored in design. The increase in stiffness and capacity can be attributed to the sheathing aiding in distributing the concentrated load to the unloaded decking elements and preventing the failure of the tongue-and-groove joints.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".