MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285733530 · doi:10.3390/buildings12071022

Effects of Ground Motion Duration on the Seismic Performance of a Two-Storey Balloon-Type CLT Building

2022· article· en· W4285733530 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Maral Jafari, Yuxin Pan, Md Shahnewaz, Thomas Tannert

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersNatural Resources CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsOpenSeesDuration (music)Structural engineeringGround motionIncremental Dynamic AnalysisSeismic hazardAmplitudeSeismic analysisFragilityGeologySeismologyEngineeringReinforced concretePhysicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of long duration ground motions on the seismic performance of a newly constructed two-storey balloon-type cross-laminated timber (CLT) building located in Vancouver, Canada, was studied. A three-dimensional numerical model of the building was developed in OpenSees. The connection and shear wall models were validated with test data. Twenty-four pairs of long and short duration records with approximately the same amplitude, frequency content, and rate of energy build-up were used for nonlinear dynamic analyses. Fragility curves were developed based on the results of incremental dynamic analysis to assess the building’s collapse capacity. At design intensity level, ground motion duration was shown not to be a critical factor as the difference in inter-storey drift ratio between the two sets of records was negligible. However, due to the larger number of inelastic cycles, the long duration motions increased the median probability of collapse by 9% when compared with the short duration motions. Further research is required to evaluate the duration effects on taller and platform-type CLT buildings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207