Large coseismic displacements and tall buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Seismic demands imposed on tall buildings are sensitive to long‐period ground motions. A source of these motions can be near‐fault effects: rupture directivity and fling step (large coseismic displacements). The potential adverse effects of near‐fault motions on structures have been attributed to rupture directivity in previous studies. However, the influence of large coseismic displacement on tall building seismic response has not been widely investigated. This study explores the influence of coseismic displacements on the nonlinear response of tall buildings. Several nonlinear time history analyses were performed to evaluate the response of a reinforced concrete tall building to coseismic displacements. The ground motions used for these analyses were recorded in the proximity of faults where large coseismic displacements have been observed. Recorded motions from the Landers earthquake (1992), Kocaeli earthquake (1999), Tohoku earthquake (2011) and Chi‐Chi earthquake (1999) were selected for this study. The results from a parametric study of the response of a single‐degree‐of‐freedom system showed that the influence of the fling on the system response is dependent on (a) the ratio of fling rise time to the fundamental period of the system and (b) the yielding resistance of the structure. At the onset of yielding, the fling step can further drive the system into very large displacements. The results from the case study indicate a significant increase on the seismic response of a tall building when the fling effect is included in the ground motions. This issue is a concern for tall buildings in regions where faults are not mapped to a great extent and near‐fault fling effect could be produced by a large magnitude earthquake. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".