Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Phase-resolved analysis reveals dynamics of seismic load redistribution in mass-timber structures, suggesting new methods for design validation.
Self-centering rocking systems redistribute seismic demand as contact conditions at structural interfaces change during excitation. Conventional peak-response measures, global-response model calibration, and system-identification summaries can obscure the transient redistribution among diaphragms, wall couplings, and restoring components. This study addresses that gap with a phase-resolved analysis of heterogeneous measurements from fourteen full-scale shake-table tests of a two-story mass-timber building with post-tensioned cross-laminated timber rocking walls. Acceleration, strain, post-tensioning-force, and wall-uplift records were aligned, screened, and placed on a common analysis grid; uplift-defined operating phases were then evaluated using normalized subsystem activity, entropy, effective participation, conditional directed predictability, and dimensional force-uplift work. Median effective participation increased from 2.7 subsystems in the closed state to approximately 5.8 during rocking. The median closed-to-rocking Jensen–Shannon divergence was 0.195, the median post-recontact recovery index was 0.813, and restoring work was 4.6–10.7% greater on the south wall line. Rocking-phase floor-diaphragm activity co-varied with south restoring work (Spearman ρ = 0.873, p < 0.001). The new scientific result is that wall uplift reorganizes the composition of measured subsystem activity rather than simply scaling a fixed response pattern. The proposed indicators therefore provide complementary, phase-conditioned targets for experimental comparison and nonlinear-model validation, while remaining distinct from equilibrium force fractions, damage indices, or unrestricted causal measures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chuai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: