Seismic fragility analysis of a three-story cross-laminated timber building considering near and far field ground motions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper investigates the seismic response of the three-story Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) building of the SOFIE project subjected to the Near-Field (NF) Far-Field (FF) ground motions according to FEMA P-695. The numerical models have been developed in connector, wall and full-scale building levels in OpenSees. Nonlinear nonlinear springs have been utilised to model the behaviour of CLT connectors while considering Gap joints only to transfer compression forces between panels and the rigid foundation without the ability to carry tensile forces. The CLT panels have been modelled as moment-resisting frames by applying elastic beam elements with high stiffness. The panel-to-panel and panel-to-foundation friction has also been considered by modifying the initial stiffness of the CLT connector springs. The building was analysed using Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA), including 2450 time-history simulations, to assess its behaviour during ground motions. Significant Damage (SD) and Near-Collapse (NC) damage stated have been identified for the building based on EN12512 standard through Modal Push-over Analysis (MPA). Subsequently, the fragility curves have been developed for the CLT building under NF and FF ground motions. The IDA curves prove that the CLT building considered in this paper is more affected by Near-Field Pulse-like (NF-P) than by Near-Field No-Pulse (NF-NP) and FF ground motions. Moreover, the modelled building is significantly more affected by NF-P ground motions than by NF-NP and FF motions, with a higher probability of collapse under NF-P conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 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".