MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411808185 · doi:10.1007/s10518-025-02206-w

Seismic fragility analysis of a three-story cross-laminated timber building considering near and far field ground motions

2025· article· en· W4411808185 on OpenAlexaff
Saeid Javidi, Igor Gavrić, G. Fourlaris, Mohammad Reza Salami

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Earthquake Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsLearning Partnership
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFragilityGeologyField (mathematics)HydrogeologySeismic analysisNear and far fieldSeismologyGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringEngineeringCivil engineeringForensic engineeringPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Earthquake EngineeringSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207