DESIGN OF LONG-SPAN LIGHTWEIGHT TIMBER FLOORS SUBJECT TO WALKING EXCITATIONS: A CASE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lightweight timber construction is popular in buildings with two or more storeys in Australia.The floors are made of a floorboard supported on joists or trusses.Recently, the sector is moving towards multi-storey construction of different building classes with different floor usages and shared tenancy.Thus, a need for high performing lightweight floor systems becomes urgent.The current vibration control criteria in the Australian standard recommends limiting static deflection, which is a coarse method and does not necessarily guarantee satisfactory performance.In the current study, vibration performance of a 6m×6m floor system with particleboard flange and truss webs is investigated under single walker excitations and at different walking frequencies.The vibration responses are compared to the predictions and performance criteria recommended in international standards and guidelines.The results show inconsistencies in the calculated levels of acceptance from different sources using simplified expressions and more rigorous methods of analysis.This highlights the significance of the need for further research to develop a harmonised method of analysis that can be used by manufacturers and engineers in Australia to confidently design floors for vibrations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".