Shake Table Test of Full-Size Wooden Houses versus Wall Test Result: Comparison of Load-Deformation Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The design procedure considered in the Japanese code for low-rise timber houses (two or fewer stories), is through a wall volume method. The wall volume method entails calculating the shear capacity of each wall through addition of shear walls. However, past earthquake damages highlighted the vulnerability of light timber structures and warrant detailed evaluations to assess the design practice. In this study, load-deformation (P-θ) relations of the wall are combined to estimate the story shear drift. The general calculation of the amount of walls as a design method for a house is very simple. Buildings damaged in recent earthquakes have become of a concern to decision makers, owners, and designers. To validate the wall volume method, 21 full-scale shake table tests are compared with static wall test results. From the analytical and experimental studies, the short-term allowable shear strength in design with the full-scale experiment is about 2.25 times the standard method and about 2.0 times the quality verification method. Regarding the P-θ relationship, the rigidity and maximum load obtained from the experimental tests are 1.2 and 1.3 times larger than the addition, respectively. This paper has highlighted also influences of nonstructural members on the overall response of the structures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".