Selection of seismic excitations for nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete frame buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The selection of seismic motions is one of the most important issues for the time-history analysis of buildings. This paper discusses four different methods for obtaining spectrum-compatible acceleration time histories (i.e., accelerograms) of seismic motions. Based on these methods, four sets of accelerograms compatible with the design spectrum for Vancouver were selected for this study. These included (i) scaled real accelerograms, (ii) modified real accelerograms, (iii) simulated accelerograms, and (iv) artificial accelerograms. The selected sets were used as excitation motions in the nonlinear analysis of three reinforced concrete frame buildings designed for Vancouver. The buildings included a 4-storey, a 10-storey, and a 16-storey building, which can be considered representative of low-rise, medium-rise, and high-rise buildings, respectively. The storey shears, interstorey drifts, and curvature ductilities for beams and columns obtained from the analysis were used for the evaluation of the effects of the selected sets on the responses of the buildings. Based on the results from the analysis, scaled real accelerograms are recommended for use in time-history analysis of reinforced concrete frame buildings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".