Experimental and numerical investigations on vibration performance of mass timber slab floors with floating concrete toppings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass timber floor systems face serviceability challenges such as deflection, sound insulation, and vibration due to their relatively light weight and low bending stiffness. Floating concrete topping is often applied to improve acoustic performance and fire resistance, though its impact on vibration performance is less understood. The current Canadian design standard CSA O86-24 suggests ignoring the effect of concrete topping when applying the vibration-controlled span equation if its area density is less than twice of the bare cross laminated timber (CLT) floor area density. Floating concrete toppings typically don’t necessitate mechanical fasteners, although limited tests have shown partial composite behavior. This study experimentally investigated the vibration performance and dynamic properties of mass timber slab floors with floating concrete toppings, examining two dowel laminated timber (DLT) floors with varying thicknesses, spans, concrete topping thicknesses, floor assemblies, and boundary conditions. Effective bending stiffness was derived from experimental data as inputs for fundamental natural frequency calculation. Additionally, two finite element models were developed for modal analysis of mass timber floors with floating concrete toppings. Results demonstrated that the floating concrete topping could significantly enhance the floor system’s vibration performance, improving an unacceptable bare timber floor to acceptable levels. However, its impact on the fundamental natural frequency depends in the thickness of the concrete topping and details of floating floor assemblies. Composite action between the concrete topping and timber slab existed even without mechanical fasteners, though the degree of this action varied across different assemblies. Accurate modeling of such floor systems can be achieved with careful consideration of input of material properties and partial composite action factors. • The vibration performance of mass timber slabs with floating concrete toppings was investigated experimentally. • Partial composite action behavior was observed with varying composite efficiency. • Recommendations for modal analysis of mass timber floors with floating concrete toppings were provided .
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".