Seismic Response of Braced Heavy Timber Frames with Riveted Connections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Braced timber frames (BTFs) are one the most efficient lateral load–resisting systems to resist earthquake and high wind loads. Design guidelines for this system currently do not exist in Canadian wood design standards. Only seismic force modification factors for moderately ductile BTFs and limited-ductility frames are specified by the National Building Code of Canada. The code is vague about what types of connections can be used to achieve moderately ductile or limited ductility BTFs. This study investigated the seismic response of 30 BTFs using rivets designed with Rd=2.0 and Ro=1.5 by conducting pushover analysis following the coefficient evaluation method. The influence of key design parameters—i.e., configurations (single- versus multistory), number of stories, story heights, and aspect ratios of the tiers—on the stiffness, strength, and ductility of BTFs was discussed. The proposed seismic force modification factors for BTFs with riveted connections were evaluated preliminarily using the concept of collapse margin ratio (CMR). It was found that the system ductility of BTFs was much lower than that of connections. Single-story buildings possessed higher ductility, and CMR compared with multistory buildings. Single- and multistory BTFs with wider bays had higher strength ratio of demand to capacity and lower ductility and CMR. The building height limit of 20 m was conservative for multistory BTFS. The response of the investigated BTFs proved that Rd=2.0 and Ro=1.5 were appropriate for the seismic design of BTFs with riveted connections. Moreover, connections with ductility not less than that of riveted connections can be adopted by moderately ductile BTFs.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".