Seismic loss assessment of direct-DBD platform-type cross-laminated timber shear wall systems using FEMA P-58 methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An efficient design method should provide practitioners with a means for sizing timber buildings to meet specific performance levels against estimated earthquake intensities. Displacement and energy design considerations in force-based design (FBD) procedures are not as precise as intended in complex systems, such as mid- to high-rise timber buildings. The main aim of this study is to tailor the direct displacement-based design (D-DBD) classical framework to platform-type cross-laminated timber (CLT) shear wall structural systems and validate their performance for low-rise to high-rise timber mixed-use buildings. A comparison with results obtained via the FBD analyses is also provided. To this end, timber buildings with heights of 4, 8 and 12 stories are designed via the D-DBD and FBD methods. The seismic performance of platform-type CLT wall buildings is assessed in terms of the repair cost, repair time and casualty rate using FEMA P-58 methodology. The seismic response of CLT shear walls shows that the FBD method may lead to an expensive overdesign, especially in high-rise platform-type CLT walls. Conversely, the D-DBD method develops structural systems which can sustain a comparable level of damage from low- to high-rise platform-type CLT walls. Although the seismic loss assessment of buildings shows slightly better performance for the FBD method than the D-DBD method, it is worth noting that the D-DBD method does not lead to an unsafe building. Consequently, the D-DBD method sounds like a proper alternative approach for designing the CLT shear walls to achieve target performance levels without requiring a premium upfront cost.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".