Capacity and Failure-Mode Prediction of Mass Timber Panel–Concrete Composite Floor System with Mechanical Connectors
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
Lack of design standards and guidelines is the most important barrier limiting widespread use of mass timber panel–concrete (MTPC) composite floor systems, a preferred choice by designers in modern multistory mass timber construction. The commonly used Gamma method of designing timber–concrete composite floors has some limitations and cannot predict the load-carrying capacity and failure modes of composite floor systems. Therefore, an analytical model was developed considering the interlayer connector behavior under the elastic-plastic range along with an acoustic layer between timber and concrete, to accurately predict the capacity and failure modes of MTPC composite floor system. One-way acting composite floor panels were tested under four-point bending with different configurations to investigate the influence of different parameters and to validate the developed capacity prediction model. It was found that the model can predict the capacity of the MTPC composite system within 17% of the experimental value and the associated failure mode. This developed capacity prediction model for MTPC composite floors will facilitate the use of these system in mass timber construction.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it