Effects of Ground Motion Duration on the Seismic Performance and Collapse Rate of Light-Frame Wood Houses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the effects of long duration ground motion on three conventional low-rise light-frame wood houses with different sheathing configurations. These are two-story residential houses built with an oriented strand board (OSB) wall system and stucco sheathing, an OSB wall system without stucco, and a horizontal board sheathing wall system without stucco. Three-dimensional numerical models of the structures were developed using the Timber3D program and calibrated with full-scale shake table test data. The shear wall systems were simulated with the modified Stewart (MSTEW) model that accounts for cyclic and in-cycle degradation. For this study, seven short duration ground motions from the China Lushan earthquake of 2013 and seven long duration motions from the adjacent 2008 Wenchuan earthquake were selected. Both suites of motions were recorded at the same strong motion stations and were spectrally matched to have similar spectra. Fragility curves for collapse and drift exceedance were derived based on incremental dynamic analysis (IDA). Results indicate that under long duration motions, median collapse capacities for the three houses are reduced by 26–61% compared to that due to short duration motions. A 1% lesser peak interstory drift (ISD) approaching collapse was also estimated under long duration motions. In addition, for a 3% design drift limit, there is a 17% higher probability of exceeding this drift due to long duration shaking. This study demonstrates that from the three types of houses analyzed in this study, house that had blocked shearwalls with OSB sheathing showed significantly higher seismic resistance than the other two housing types analyzed, while house that used horizontal wood boards showed the lowest resistance. Structures with horizontal board sheathing should not be permitted in areas of significant seismic activity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".