MODULE FOR ANALYSIS AND CAPACITY-BASED DESIGN OF BRACED TIMBER FRAMES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) specifies values for the ductility-related force modification factor (Rd) for different seismic force resisting systems (SFRSs), which reflects their ability to dissipate energy during a seismic event.For braced timber frames (BTF), NBCC 2020 recognizes two ductility categories: braced frames with moderate and limited ductility, which are assigned an Rd value of 2.0 and 1.5, respectively.However, these values were primarily based on engineering judgment, qualitative comparisons, and experience rather than rigorous analysis using a recognized procedure.Additionally, the Canadian Standard for Engineering Design in Wood, CSA O86, needs to provide specific guidance on how to achieve these two ductility levels.To address this gap, the University of Alberta and FPInnovations are conducting an extensive study to develop specific design provisions for BTFs, including detailed procedures to achieve performance requirements for each level of ductility.This paper represents the first research stage, which involves developing software to analyse and design a range of archetype BTFs using capacity-based design principles. KEYWORDS: Braced Timber Frame (
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.005 |
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".