Serviceability Performance of Timber Concrete Composite Floors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is much potential for engineered wood products to be used beyond low-rise residential construction when incorporating the notion of hybrid systems like timber-concrete-composites (TCC). TCC systems are comprised of a timber element connected to a concrete slab through a shear connection. By combining the complimentary properties of timber and concrete, the performance of timber floors can be enhanced, including bending stiffness, load-bearing capacity, dynamic response, airborne sound transmission, structural fire rating, and thermal mass. A large number of T-beam TCC systems existed for decades; however, the growing availability of panel-type products in North America offers designers greater versatility in terms of structural and building physics performance. While stiffness and strength design of TCC systems is straight-forward, there is little design guidance available in terms of vibration and long-term performance. The bending, vibration and long-term performance for a range of TCC systems in several EWPs were validated on small-scale shear tests, floor panels subjected to serviceability loads for 2.5 years, and subsequent full-size bending tests. The tests confirmed that calculations according to the ?-method can predict the basic stiffness and dynamic properties of TCC floors within a reasonable degree of accuracy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".