Vibration Performance of Mass Timber Slab Floors with Glulam Beam Supports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass timber floors are prone to human-induced vibration due to their light weight. Vibration serviceability limit design often governs the maximum allowable span of mass timber floors. The current design methods usually assume the mass timber floors are simply supported on walls, which cannot be directly applied to floors being supported by beams. In this study, the vibration performance of mass timber floors including nail laminated timber, dowel laminated timber, and cross laminated timber floor panels with beam supports was investigated experimentally. Various equations for predicting the system’s fundamental natural frequencies were assessed based on the experimental results. Additionally, a finite element model was proposed and validated using the test results for further vibration analysis. The test results highlighted the substantial influence of support stiffness on the dynamic properties and vibration performance of the floor systems. Specifically, when changing from wall supports to beam supports, the floor’s fundamental natural frequency decreased by up to 40%. This change in support resulted in a shift in vibration performance ratings from acceptable to unacceptable. Dunkerley’s equation and the equation in the draft version of the second generation of Eurocode 5 consistently produced overestimated results for up to 30% when predicting the system’s fundamental natural frequency. In contrast, Kollar’s equation displayed an average error within 5%, with the modification introduced in this research, it demonstrated promising potential for practical application.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".