MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7104177260 · doi:10.1061/jsendh.steng-15180

Determination of Canadian Seismic Force Modification Factors for Post-Tensioned Cross-Laminated Timber Rocking Walls

2025· article· en· W7104177260 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsFPInnovationsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarthquake shaking tableDissipationSeismic analysisArchetypeNonlinear systemEarthquake engineeringMargin (machine learning)Seismic loading

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post-tensioned cross-laminated timber (PT-CLT) rocking walls with energy dissipation devices (EDDs) have proved to be a low-damage seismic force–resisting system (SFRS) due to their self-centering capability and stable energy dissipation. Global efforts have been made to explore the applicability of PT-CLT walls as primary SFRS in mass-timber buildings. Studies have demonstrated satisfactory performance of such systems in high seismic risk zones in Canada. Nonetheless, challenges remain for this system to be practically adopted in Canada due to the absence of SFRS force modification factors (overstrength-related factor, Ro, and ductility-related factor, Rd) in the latest editions of the National Building Code of Canada (NBC). This study evaluates Rd and Ro factors for PT-CLT rocking walls with EDDs following the performance-based unified (PBU) procedure and FEMA P695. The PBU procedure is used to assess system performance against life safety and collapse prevention performance levels, whereas global collapse analysis is conducted following FEMA P695. An Ro of 1.5 and three trial Rd factors, Rd=3, 4, and 5, were initially considered. To reflect potential variability in building geometry, system configuration, and seismic hazards, 75 archetype buildings were designed using each Rd factor, leading to 225 archetype buildings in this study. A robust multispring numerical modeling strategy in OpenSeesPy was first validated with full-scale quasi-static cyclic and shaking table tests and then used to model all archetype buildings. Nonlinear static analysis was first conducted to validate the Ro factor, followed by nonlinear response history analyses and incremental dynamic analyses to validate trial Rd factors by examining building performance and collapse margin ratios. The investigation indicated that an Ro of 1.5 and an Rd of 4 could make all designed archetype buildings satisfy the acceptance criteria of both the PBU procedure and FEMA P695.

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.

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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · 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