Establishing the fundamental period of light-frame wood buildings on the basis of ambient vibration tests
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research project deals with dynamic field testing of light-frame wood buildings with wood-based shear walls. The primary objective of the investigation is to evaluate the building code formula for estimating light-frame wood building’s fundamental period for seismic analysis, through intensive field testing and numerical modeling. The project also aims to propose an alternative simplified rational approach to seismic analysis of these structures. The paper presents ambient vibration testing results of light-frame wood buildings in Canada. The dynamic characteristics of the measured buildings, such as natural frequency, mode shapes, and equivalent structural damping were obtained from frequency domain analysis of ambient motion records. Using a simplified method of period estimation based on the Rayleigh approximation while using the building mass and replacing the stiffness of shear walls by their length showed reasonable fit when compared with the finite element model results and ambient vibration testing measured periods. A formula was developed based on the regression analysis of the tested buildings. The expression is a function of building height, floor area, and shear wall length and it was shown to provide a reasonably good fit with the measured results.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it