MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2375129144 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2015-0552

Influence of joint strength variability in timber-frame structures: propagation of uncertainty through shear wall finite element models under seismic loading

2016· article· en· W2375129144 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Clément Boudaud, Julien Baroth, L. Daudeville

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoint (building)Structural engineeringFrame (networking)Shear (geology)Shear strength (soil)GeologyEngineeringMechanical engineeringSoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Results of tests performed on joints used in timber-frame construction allow characterizing the variability of their mechanical behavior, which differs substantially from one joint to the next. The parameters of a constitutive model of the joints and their variability are identified. Finite element (FE) models of a shear wall and a timber-frame house are used in nonlinear dynamic calculations to study the propagation of uncertainty through the structure. It demonstrates that for a single-story 6 m × 6 m house, the variations in mechanical strength of each connection do not significantly affect the structural behavior of the house. Both the numerical and experimental results (on a shaking table) are quite similar, proving the model accuracy, its ability to study the propagation of uncertainty and its relevance for future development (non-regular, multi-story buildings…). Moreover, a sensitivity analysis performed on a FE wall model under uncertain seismic loads reveals the importance of earthquake motion modeling.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering→Same topicWood Treatment and Properties→French-language works237,207→