Theoretical Building Height Limits of Balloon Mass Timber Shear Wall Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Balloon-type mass timber shear walls are one of the most efficient structural systems to resist lateral loads induced by earthquakes or high winds. They are a viable solution for high-rise buildings because they have several key advantages, such as reducing connections and avoiding accumulating compression perpendicular to grain in the floors. This system, however, is not included in current Canadian building code and has no design guidelines in the Canadian timber standard, so it is out of reach of most designers. A multiyear research project has been initiated to quantify the system performance and develop the necessary technical information to codify balloon-type mass timber shear walls. In this paper, the limits for the building height of balloon mass timber shear walls were investigated theoretically. A mechanics-based analytical model was developed to analyze the building height limits governed mainly by the mass timber panels. The influence of loading types (seismic versus wind loads), lateral load levels, panel deformation contribution, seismic force modification factors, and vertical joints between panels on the building heights was investigated using the developed model. The results of this study will give a valuable insight into the seismic performance of balloon type cross-laminated timber (CLT) shear walls.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".