SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF BALLOON-TYPE CONVENTIONAL AND RESILIENT CLT SHEAR WALLS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper evaluates and compares the seismic performance of prototype modular mass timber buildings with balloon-type conventional and resilient cross laminated timber (CLT) shear walls as seismic force-resisting systems (SFRS). The newly developed dual-pinned self-centering coupled wall has been employed as a resilient SFRS, while conventional balloon-type CLT walls with doweled hold downs have been studied as the conventional SFRS. The seismic performance of buildings has been evaluated by employing the performance-based evaluation procedure outlined in the technical guideline published by the Canadian Construction Materials Center (CCMC)/National Research Council Canada (NRC). Robust finite element models of the resilient and conventional CLT shear walls have been developed in OpenSees. The nonlinear behavior of the displacement-controlled components is calibrated using available experimental data. A suite of ground motions suitable for the site located in Vancouver has been selected, scaled, and subjected to numerical models at 100% and 200% uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) intensity levels according to CCMC/NRC procedure. The results highlight the difference in the damage level and performance of the studied systems.
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) | 0.001 | 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".