Shake table tests on single-storey braced timber frames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concentrically braced timber frames are often used as lateral load resisting systems in wood buildings where large open spaces are required. For application in high-risk earthquake zones, however, the ductility of the system is a concern, since energy absorption is typically limited to the connection region. In this paper, results are presented from a series of shake table tests conducted on single-storey braced frame models with different connections. Diagonal braces with five different connection types were tested, four of which used bolts as fasteners, while one brace had timber riveted connections. Four of the connections had a matching set with an identical configuration that was previously tested quasi-statically. Findings from the tests are presented along with some comments on the seismic behavior of this type of structural system. It was found that the seismic response of the braced frames is highly influenced by the brace connections. Braced frames with small diameter (slender) bolts and timber rivets showed desirable seismic performance, as they were able to dissipate the highest amount of the seismic input energy. A comparison of the quasi-static and shake table tests revealed slight differences in the load–deformation properties of the brace connections.Key words: braced timber frames, seismic response, connections, timber rivets, bolts, ductility, shake table tests.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".