Performance‐based design of tall‐coupled cross‐laminated timber wall building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Growing demand in sustainable high‐rise timber structures is satisfied by proposing innovative structural systems that enhance the building's stiffness, strength, and energy‐dissipation capacity. This study propose and develop the performance‐based design (PBD) guideline for balloon type cross‐laminated timber (CLT) coupled wall (CLT‐CW) structure. In this system, the CLT shear‐walls are connected with energy dissipation coupling beams that comprise shear‐links and in return reduce the seismic demand of the system. To facilitate the desired rocking deformation mode of CLT shear‐wall panels, buckling‐restrained brace (BRB) hold‐downs are used. Utility of the proposed system and design is applied on a 20‐story balloon CLT‐CW system. To investigate the effect of coupling ratio () on the behavior of the system, five values (10%–50%) are used. Nonlinear and incremental dynamic analyses (IDAs) are performed using suitable set of 30 ground motion (GM) records that reflects the seismicity of Vancouver, Canada. Fragility curves are developed and compared considering both the collapse and non‐collapse limit states. The results show that, for a given CLT‐CW system, a system with higher value exhibits better seismic performance.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".