MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380449513 · doi:10.52202/069179-0377

SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION OF TALL MASS TIMBER STRUCTURES EMPLOYING AMBIENT VIBRATION TEST AND FE MODELLING

2023· article· en· W4380449513 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Samira Mohammadyzadeh, Jianhui Zhou, Lin Hu, Fei Tong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsFPInnovationsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsServiceability (structure)VibrationStructural engineeringNatural frequencyModalAmbient vibrationFinite element methodModal analysisSensitivity (control systems)EngineeringReinforced concreteDamping ratioNumerical modelsComputer scienceComputer simulationSimulationAcousticsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the recent rapid development in dynamic characteristics identification of structures, lack of knowledge in dynamic properties of tall mass timber buildings is still an open issue for researchers and designers.There are ongoing international efforts to develop a comprehensive database for predicting the vibration performance of timber structures for serviceability and seismic design.This paper discusses an ambient vibration test (AVT) that was conducted on a six-storey mass timber building known as Wood Innovation and Design Centre (WIDC) located in Prince George, Canada.The test results including the experimental natural frequencies and damping ratios were compared with a threephase test program undertaken in 2014, 2015, and 2017 by FPInnovations.In addition, a numerical modal analysis was conducted on the same building, using both simplified and complex finite element (FE) models.A sensitivity analysis was carried out considering various assumptions of connection types to investigate its effect on the natural frequencies of the structure.The results of current AVT showed minor changes in frequencies over the service time in comparison to previous tests.According to the numerical results, the simplified FE model poorly matched with the results from AVT, while the complex model showed a better agreement with the measured fundamental frequency; however, significant discrepancies were observed in the second and third modes.The sensitivity analysis indicated low impact of different connection type assumptions on the natural frequencies of the case building obtained from the FE models.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWood Treatment and Properties→French-language works237,207→