Seismic Behavior of Balloon Frame CLT Shear Walls with Different Ledgers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents experimental investigations on the seismic behavior of cross laminated timber (CLT) shear walls in a balloon frame configuration with various ledger assemblies attached at midheight. The tested system consisted of two seven-ply 191-mm-thick CLT panels with generic hold-downs, steel angle brackets, plywood surface splines, and nails as fasteners. A 2-story system was tested with a panel aspect ratio of 3∶1 with different steel and wood ledgers under monotonic and quasistatic reversed cyclic loading. Three ledgers were subsequently tested under vertical quasistatic monotonic loading to determine their remaining load-carrying capacity. The tests showed that the shear wall displacement was due to the rocking of the wall panels, which themselves behaved as rigid bodies with negligible in-plane deformations. When compared to the monotonic tests, the strength in reversed cyclic tests was up to 21% lower. The ledger did not impede the desired rocking behavior of the wall, nor did the rocking of the wall reduce the remaining gravity load-carrying capacity of the ledgers by more than 7%. Balloon-framed CLT shear walls can be detailed and designed using the Canadian standard specifications for platform-type construction.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".