Experimental parametric study on the in-plane stiffness of wood diaphragms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of in situ quasi-static tests on a full-scale wood floor diaphragm in a two-storey woodframe house. The main objective of the study was to investigate the in-plane flexibility/rigidity of the diaphragm. Fourteen different diaphragm and structural configurations were investigated. The main parameters considered in the study included the nail schedule, panel-edge blocking, sub-floor adhesive, perpendicular walls above and below the diaphragm, and wall finish materials. The results indicated that panel-edge blocking increased significantly the diaphragm shear stiffness, particularly for diaphragms without sub-floor adhesive. Also, the presence of perpendicular walls acting as additional chord members caused a significant increase in the flexural stiffness of the diaphragm. The design procedure included in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) to compute in-plane diaphragm deformations was assessed by comparing its predictions with the experimental results. The UBC predictions agreed well with the experimental results for some configurations, but the correlation was poor for others.Key words: diaphragms, floor, tests, wood, wooden structures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".