Performance-based wind design of tall mass timber buildings with coupled post-tensioned cross-laminated timber shear walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engineered timber panels, such as cross-laminated timber (CLT), have enabled tall mass timber buildings to reach heights equivalent to mid-rise concrete and steel buildings. Tall mass timber buildings are lighter and more flexible than their concrete and steel equivalents, which makes their design wind-critical. The current prescriptive code-based design of main wind force resisting systems (MWFRSs) only considers buildings’ linear-elastic capacity, resulting in costly designs requiring commercially unavailable timber cross sections. This prevents engineers from fully utilizing timber as MWFRS and limits the height that mass timber buildings can reach. In performance-based wind design (PBWD), nonlinear-inelastic deformation in specially designed and detailed parts of MWFRSs enables an optimal design. However, controlling damage accumulation in structures can be challenging due to the substantial mean component of wind loads in the along-wind direction. To this end, self-centering systems such as coupled post-tensioned CLT (PT-CLT) walls can offer a solution. However, despite extensive analytical and experimental studies on the use of PT-CLT walls as seismic force-resisting systems, their use as MWFRSs has not been explored. Therefore, this paper proposes the use of PT-CLT walls as MWFRSs in tall mass timber buildings and develops a new PBWD approach for their design. To demonstrate the applicability of the PBWD approach, 8- and 16-story prototype mass timber buildings hypothetically located in Toronto, Canada, were designed using PBWD and load information from wind tunnel tests. For performance assessment, three-dimensional multi-spring numerical models were developed in OpenSeesPy and validated with full-scale quasi-static cyclic and shaking table experimental tests. Performance assessments using nonlinear response history analysis (NLRHA) under simultaneous along-, across-, and torsional-wind loads for 36 wind directions were carried out. The results indicate that the proposed PBWD framework is practical and effective for designing PT-CLT shear walls as MWFRSs in tall mass timber buildings.
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) | 0.002 | 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".