Ductility Estimation for a Novel Timber-Steel-Hybrid System with Consideration of Uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 2010 National Building Code of Canada (NRC 2010), certain structures can be designed for seismic loads using an equivalent static force procedure. In these provisions, elastic design forces are reduced by a ductility factor, Rd, which accounts for the ability of different systems to deform beyond yielding. The NBCC 2010, however, only provides ductility factors for traditional structural systems, including timber- or steel-based systems; there are currently no specific Rd factors for hybrid structural systems. Thus research is required to safely and efficiently design novel systems within the existing seismic design provisions. The FFTT system, an acronym for “Finding the Forest Through the Trees” is an innovative building system proposed for high-rise timber-steel composite structures using mass timber panels connected with steel beams. This research presents nonlinear dynamic analyses to propose an Rd factor for design Option-1 of the FFTT system considering the uncertainties of structural mass, hold-down stiffness, and connection properties of the lateral load resisting system. Based on the analyses presented herein, a ductility factor of 5.0 is deemed reasonable for design Option-1 of the novel timber-steel hybrid system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".