Period formulas of shear wall buildings with flexible bases
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The evaluation of the fundamental period of shear wall buildings considering the flexibility of the base is investigated in this paper. This research is motivated by the discrepancy reported between the formulas used in different building codes and the measurement of real buildings. Both experimental and analytical approaches are used to assess the effect of the base flexibility on the fundamental period of shear wall structures. In total, twenty buildings built on different types of soil are tested under ambient vibration. The fundamental period is identified using a non‐parametric linear model in the frequency domain. The results show that fundamental period formulas used by UBC‐97 and NBCC‐95 are inadequate since they do not include the effect of the foundation stiffness. To improve the estimation of the fundamental period of shear wall buildings, an analytical approach is presented. The structure and the foundation are represented by a continuous‐discrete system. The stiffnesses of the base are represented by translational and rotational discrete springs. The rigidities of these springs are evaluated from the elastic uniform compression of the soil mass and the size of the foundation. The analytical predictions improve the estimation of the fundamental period and keep the computation simple. The error between the measured period and the analytical results is, on average, less than 10%. Copyright © 2003 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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it