Hysteretic behavior of a cross-laminated timber building incorporating different energy dissipators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large-scale experiments on timber structures, incorporating damping devices, showed high-intensity earthquakes can be resisted. This paper compares cyclic response of a two-story cross-laminated timber (CLT) building with three different dampers: resilient slip friction joint (RSFJ), lead extrusion damper (LED), and linear friction damper (LFD). A CLT building with conventional hold-downs and angle brackets experimental work was used as a benchmark to validate the high-fidelity finite element model. Subsequently, the numerical model was extended to account for the three dampers. Re-centering efficiency, i.e., expected flag-shaped hysteretic response, of the RSFJ was ensured by increasing the shear strength of hold-downs. Buildings with LFD and LED have greater energy dissipation capacity when compared to buildings with conventional hold-downs. Improved energy dissipations were also observed in two buildings when increasing the shear strength of angle bracket or applying the rigid connections in the 2nd story. Finally, the performances of buildings with different dampers were evaluated. • Development and validation of the numerical model for a 2-story CLT shear wall building. • Development of numerical models of resilient slip friction joint, lead extrusion damper, and linear friction damper. • Comparison of hysteretic responses of CLT shear wall building with different dampers and building with conventional hold-downs. • Performance assessment of CLT buildings with different dampers.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".