Development of Rigging System for Prefabricated Wood I-joist Floor Panels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Panelized building construction are highly mechanized. Material handling and lifting equipment dominate construction sites and constitute the critical element in achieving productivity. In recent construction practice, panelized wood I-joist floor panels are normally lifted into place by mobile crane using flexible slings inserted through the predrilled holes on the I-joist web and sheathing panels above the I-joist top flange and then wrapped around the I-joists at the four corners. However, the pre-drilled holes on the web and sheathing may weaken the floor panels. Moreover, a range of techniques for lifting and handling mass timber panels have been developed. A typical rigging technique consists of a lifting ring and a steel plate with pre-drilled holes. By using several self-tapping screws, the panel was connected with the rigging device for lifting. However, since prefabricated I-joist floor panels are much lighter than mass timber panels and the I-joist flange is relatively narrow and thin, the rigging device for mass timber panels cannot be applied directly to I-joist floor panels, but a modified design can be developed for prefabricated I-joist floor panels. In the present study, a new rigging device was designed for prefabricated wood I-joist panels and their load capacity was evaluated by withdrawal tests. Several factors influencing the withdrawal capacity were investigated including screw types and quantities, flange width and materials, and OSB thickness.
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".