Innovation in the design of cross laminated timber for long span floors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) construction is now considered a viable and sustainable alternative to traditional building techniques within the multi-storey building sector. This is primarily due to the high level of prefabrication possible with CLT construction, its high strength-to-weight ratio and its potential as a carbon negative building material. As a result, an increasing number of developers and architects are requesting a CLT design option for multi-storey buildings using CLT wall and floor panels. The latter, especially long span floors, provides a challenge for engineers. Long span CLT floors have a lower natural frequency and are light in weight, which can cause noticeable vibrations. This paper examines existing analytical design procedures available to calculate floor vibrations and provides a preliminary design for floors spanning 9 m. Innovations in CLT panels are introduced, including increased connection rigidity and the use of hardwood timber species, resulting in increased panel stiffness and reduced floor vibrations. Whilst CLT has been extensively researched and tested in Europe and Canada, only limited research has occurred within Australia and New Zealand. This paper also discusses Australian and New Zealand standards and codes and the use of locally grown soft and hardwood timber species for CLT panels.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".