Seismic loss and resilience assessment of tall‐coupled cross‐laminated timber wall building
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it