Collapse Behavior of Platform-Type CLT Construction Using Shake-Table Experimental Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) walls generally have higher rigidity and seismic resistance capacity, and it was predicted that the CLT building height restrictions could be relaxed in regions with higher seismic hazards. The collapse of CLT buildings is not well understood because research that investigates the limit state performance is scant. In this paper, incremental shake-table tests were conducted on two full-scale 2-story platform-type narrow-panel CLT buildings, W1 and W2, to investigate the collapse limit state. W1 featured two 1 m wide CLT shear walls per story, whereas W2 had a single 2 m wide CLT shear wall per story. The response of W1 was governed by rocking walls, whereas W2 was dominated by sliding at higher seismic intensities. Neither W1 nor W2 collapsed at the seismic excitation of JMA Kobe NS 140%, at which the maximum interstory drift ratios of 8.8% and 5.9% were achieved. The system has sufficient energy dissipation mechanisms, but the need for an overall system-level design that considers innovative connections is apparent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".