Connection and System Ductility Relationship for Braced Timber Frames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Braced timber frames (BTFs) are an efficient lateral load-resisting system for wind and seismic loads. This paper derived a relationship between the connection ductility and the system ductility of concentric BTFs based on engineering principles. The system ductility is a function of the connection ductility, the stiffness ratio of the connection to the diagonal brace, and the number of tiers and story. The proposed relationship was verified against the pushover analysis results of single-story and multistory BTF buildings. The verified relationship was used to investigate the influence of connection ductility, stiffness ratio, and number of tiers and stories on the system ductility of BTFs. It is recommended, if possible, that the BTFs be designed in such a way that the connections at both ends of diagonal braces can yield simultaneously, so that a higher system ductility can be achieved. It was found that for moderately ductile BTFs according to National Building Code of Canada, the minimum brace connection ductility of 11.5 is needed when only one end connection is yielding and exhibiting significant nonlinear behavior, and the other connection remains linear elastic. If both end connections of each diagonal brace yield, the minimum connection ductility needed is 6.3. In the case of limited-ductility BTFs, the minimum connection ductility needed is 5.4 when yielding in a single connection occurs and 3.2 when yielding in both end connections occurs. The derived relationship will help researchers and engineers to predict the system ductility of BTFs with different connections.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".