Vibration attenuation in cross-laminated timber–steel composite floors using loose sand as a passive damping mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lightweight timber-based floor systems are known to be susceptible to poor vibration serviceability. When hybridized with steel, the intrinsic low damping of steel may affect the overall vibration performance of the floor system. Common measures adopted to enhance vibration serviceability include stiffness enhancement, span reduction, and damping improvement. This study focuses on the latter, and loose sand is investigated as a simple passive damping mechanism in hybrid cross-laminated timber (CLT)-steel composite floors via modal tests and walking-induced acceleration measurements. The results indicated enhancements in the damping values of composite floor modules with beams filled with loose sand over those without sand, with an additional 2 % damping on average. Damping ratios peaked at 7 % in floors with loose sand, resulting in considerable reductions in their acceleration metrics. Due to added weight, the damped composite floors experienced a slight drop in fundamental frequencies by about 5 % on average, but their mode shapes were unaffected. Overall, the study showed that incorporating loose sand can enhance the vibration performance of hybrid CLT–steel composite floors.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".