Vibration Performance of Lightweight Cold-Formed Steel Floors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study investigating the modal properties and dynamic response of several laboratory-constructed and in situ floors supported with cold-formed steel C-shaped joists for floors was conducted. The tested floors were typical of residential midrise applications, with oriented-strand board, FORTACRETE, and cold-formed steel deck subfloors, both with and without lightweight concrete topping. Details including span, large lip-reinforced web openings, subfloor, topping, strongback, and framing condition were varied to observe their influence on the fundamental frequency, damping ratio, and deflection. Suggestions for the design and remediation of floors where vibration serviceability is a concern are given. Laboratory tested floor systems were generally found to be the worst-case scenario for the natural frequency and damping ratio. Furniture and finishes were found to not appreciably change the performance of a floor system. The responses of the floor systems tested in this study were evaluated against the ISO 2631 limit for maximum acceleration and Onysko’s static deflection limit, as presented in ATC Design Guide 1: Minimizing Floor Vibration. The in situ floors examined were found to have performed within the acceptable range, as defined by the two criteria.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it