Review of Vibration Assessment Methods for Steel-Timber Composite Floors
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
Human comfort is recognized as an essential serviceability requirement for timber floors. Although several standards and design criteria are available for designing steel and concrete floors, there is no consensus among researchers on the applicability of such design methods to timber composite floors. Adding steel to timber floors is intended to create long spans, however, vibration is still a major challenge in achieving longer spans. To highlight the extent of this issue, a comprehensive search in the literature was conducted. The most common vibration criteria that may be used to assess the performance of steel-timber composite floors under human-induced vibrations were reviewed. For lightweight composite floors, the 1 kN deflection limit was found to be the most suitable vibration limit based on a wide range of subjective evaluation studies. For composite floors comprising steel and heavier timber subfloors, the relevance of 1 kN deflection criterion and other criteria suggested in the literature are questionable due to the lack of subjective evaluation studies. In the advent of advanced computing and data analysis, conducting detailed numerical analysis validated by accurate on-site measurements is recommended. Special attentions should be given to accurate estimation of connection stiffness and damping ratio according to the findings of this study.
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