MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127977481 · doi:10.2749/vancouver.2017.0430

Seismic Performance of Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) Platform Building by Incremental Dynamic Analysis

2017· article· en· W3127977481 on OpenAlexaffabout
Md Shahnewaz, Thomas Tannert, Marjan Popovski

Bibliographic record

VenueReport · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsFPInnovationsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpenSeesCross laminated timberOrthotropic materialStructural engineeringFinite element methodShear wallSeismic analysisGeologyIncremental Dynamic AnalysisSeismic loadingEngineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study performed Incremental Dynamic Analysis on a case study Cross-laminated timber (CLT) platform building. The building was designed for the seismic modification factors of Rd=2.0 and Ro=1.5 for the soil Class C in Vancouver, BC, Canada. A 2D non-linear finite element model was developed in OpenSees. CLT panels were modelled as orthotropic elastic shell elements and the connections were modelled as non-linear springs that account for both uplift and shear deformation. The connections and wall parameters for hysteresis models were calibrated from test results. The seismic performance of the building was evaluated using the 22 bi-axial ground motions. The seismic demand was recorded in terms of inter-storey drift ratio. The results indicated that the case study CLT platform building has a sufficient factor of safety against collapse (Collapse Margin Ratio of 3.1) under a Maximum Credible Earthquake.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReportSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207