Seismic loss and resilience assessment of tall‐coupled cross‐laminated timber wall building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Balloon‐type cross‐laminated timber coupled‐wall (CLT‐CW) structure is an emerging and sustainable option for constructing tall timber buildings. The structure features buckling restrained brace (BRB) hold‐downs, balloon‐type CLT walls, and coupling beams with replaceable shear links. This study investigates the probabilistic seismic performance (including economic loss, downtime, and resilience index) of a 20‐story CLT‐CW building. A three‐dimensional (3D) structural model is developed to perform incremental dynamic analysis using 30 pairs of ground motion records that represent the seismicity of Vancouver, Canada. Intensity‐ and time‐based loss assessments are conducted to estimate probability distributions of seismic losses according to the FEMA P‐58 methodology. Post‐earthquake recovery trajectories of the housing function are also presented to calculate the seismic resilience indices under different intensities. The results reveal that the coupling beams contribute the most to repair cost among all structural components. In light of the replaceability and energy dissipating role of coupling beams, the efficiency and resiliency of the CLT‐CW building are validated.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".