Support Stiffness and Two-span Continuity Effects on Static Deflection and Fundamental Natural Frequency of Mass Timber Floors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Static deflection at mid-span under a concentrated load and fundamental natural frequency are two important vibration serviceability design parameters for mass timber panel (MTP) floor systems. Current design procedures for the two parameters tend to be conservative and over-simplified. To quantify the effects of rotational stiffness of connection, flexural stiffness of supporting beam, and two-span continuity on the two design parameters, an experiment program was conducted on 49 narrow MTP floor panel specimens at University of Alberta. Six analytical expressions are proposed to calculate the static deflection and fundamental natural frequency of two-span floor with restrained connections, one-span floor with restrained connections and supported by beams, and two-span floor with restrained connections and supported by beams. The analytical expressions were verified against the test results and a relatively good agreement was found. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to simplify the analytical expressions. Conclusions were drawn based on the comparisons and discussions. The recommended stiffnesses of supporting beams are proposed to reach satisfactory fundamental natural frequencies for both one-span and two-span floors with varies support conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".