Vibration Behaviour of Natural Timber and Timber Concrete Composite Deck System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Timber–Concrete Composite (TCC) structure consists of timber joists or beams effectively interconnected to a concrete slab cast on top of the timber members. This type of structures has applications in multi-storey buildings and short-span bridges particularly in developed countries such as America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In Malaysia, these timber concrete composite (TCC) fields are extremely uncommon compared to European country. This paper is investigated the TCC deck system as a new slab structure element that could be used in Malaysia. The use of TCC deck system with Malaysian Kempas timber and normal weight concrete is advantageous in providing a lighter structure, more sustainable and possibly a smaller foundation. Therefore the main objective of this research is to study the vibration behavior of kempas timber (natural timber) in timber deck and TCC deck by experimental modal testing. The vibration data results were conducted by modal experimental test. Then the model is verified by finite element using SAP 2000 software. The connector type that used is screw in TCC deck. The size of each deck is 3.6m x 0.8m, the thickness of concrete is 65mm and the timber beam unit with dimension 3.6 x 0.09x0.04 m. The specimens of timber and TCC deck were tested using an electrodynamic shaker. The data were analyzed using ME Scope software to determine the natural frequency and mode shape of the timber and TCC deck system. The modal experimental results for all tests were more than 8 Hz, it accepted since the vibration limitation for timber floor is 8 Hz. The TCC deck frequency due to shaker excitation is higher than only timber deck which means that the TCC improve vibration resistance property compared with only timber deck vibration resistance.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".