MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327056247 · doi:10.1061/9780784479117.242

Seismic Design and Analysis of a 20-Storey Demonstration Wood Building

2015· article· en· W2327056247 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhiyong Chen, Ying Hei Chui, Marjan Popovski

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2015 · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsFPInnovationsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStructural engineeringShear wallCross laminated timberSeismic analysisDowelEngineeringSeismic loadingFinite element methodShear (geology)Structural systemComposite numberGeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the seismic design and analysis of a 20-storey demonstration wood building, which was conducted as a part of the NEWBuildS tall wood building design project. A hybrid lateral load resisting system was chosen for the building. The system consisted of shear walls and a shear core, both made of structural composite lumber, connected with dowel-type connections and heavy-duty HSK (wood-steel-composite) system. The core and the shear walls were linked with horizontal steel beams at each floor. The wood-based panel-to-panel interface was designed to be the main energy dissipating mechanism of the system. A detailed finite element model of this building was developed and non-linear time history analyses were performed using 10 earthquake motions. The results showed that the seismic response of the 20-storey demonstration building met the various design criteria and the design details are appropriate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2015Same topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207