MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prevention of Disproportionate Collapse for Multistory Mass Timber Buildings: Review of Current Practices and Recent Research

2022· article· en· W4225134645 on OpenAlexaff
Hercend Mpidi Bita, Johannes A. J. Huber, Pedro Palma, Thomas Tannert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Response to Dynamic Loads
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineeringProgressive collapseForensic engineeringArchitectural engineeringCivil engineeringStructural engineeringReinforced concrete

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The expanding height of multistory mass timber buildings makes the development of guidance to prevent disproportionate collapse an increasingly important area of engineering design; however, there is no guidance available in building codes or design standards on how to prevent disproportionate collapse of multistory mass timber buildings. In this paper, practical project-specific solutions applied in constructed prominent multistory mass timber buildings to prevent disproportionate collapse are presented. Various approaches have been successfully used for different construction types of multistory mass timber buildings to decrease the potential risk of disproportionate collapse, such as using walls above supports as deep beams and using columns to carry tension forces and hold the floor below in case a supporting column or wall is damaged. Then, recent and ongoing research in the field of prevention of disproportionate collapse of multistory timber buildings is reviewed. Such research is mostly based on numerical simulations of element removal scenarios and pushdown experiments on floor systems and connections and provides valuable insights and guidance to designers on important structural aspects regarding the prevention of disproportionate collapse in multistory mass timber buildings. Finally, the draft provisions for an upcoming standard related to the prevention of disproportionate collapse are reviewed, and the conclusions regarding the state of the art are presented.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicStructural Response to Dynamic LoadsFrench-language works237,207