MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387148526 · doi:10.1061/jsendh.steng-12690

Seismic Design of CLT Shear-Wall and Glulam Moment-Resisting Frame Coupled Structure

2023· article· en· W4387148526 on OpenAlexaffabout
Biniam Tekle Teweldebrhan, Solomon Tesfamariam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringShear wallShear (geology)Moment (physics)Frame (networking)Seismic analysisGeologyMaterials scienceEngineeringPhysicsComposite materialClassical mechanicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the increasing need for sustainable construction materials, numerous innovative timber-based structural systems have been developed in the past two decades. While timber-based shear-walls are popular, moment-resisting timber frames have received less attention in recent studies. However, with the availability of ductile and resilient beam-column joints (BCJs), timber frames can now be effectively used either independently or in combination with others. This study explores the feasibility of a dual system, consisting of cross-laminated timber (CLT) balloon shear-wall and glulam moment-resisting frame (CLTW-GMRF), and investigates the potential interaction between the two systems under seismic loading. The building features ductile and energy-dissipative BCJs and hold-downs. A seismic design procedure, based on a targeted moment proportion (MP) between the two systems, is presented and applied on a 10-story building. The building is assumed to be located in Vancouver, Canada, and its seismic performance is examined using 30 ground motion records in OpenSees. The system’s efficiency with respect to engineering demand parameters is studied under different wall-to-frame MP values (50%–50% and 60%–40%) and ductility-related modification factors (2, 3, and 4). The study also investigates the system’s performance with two BCJs and hold-down alternatives with bilinear hysteretic and self-centering energy-dissipative responses. Given the availability of resilient connections, the result highlights that the CLTW-GMRF coupled system is a viable alternative for high-rise hybrid timber construction. Moreover, the system’s performance has significantly improved by using self-centering energy-dissipative systems.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207