MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978185876 · doi:10.1002/eqe.187

Probabilistic analysis of peak response of MDOF systems with uncertain PSD function

2002· article· en· W1978185876 on OpenAlex
Han Hong, S. S. Wang

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction
KeywordsProbability density functionModalProbabilistic logicRandom vibrationMathematicsFunction (biology)Peak ground accelerationModal analysisSpectral densityStatisticsStructural engineeringVibrationEngineeringGround motionPhysicsFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The use of uniform hazard spectra which have the same probability of exceedance at different frequencies has been proposed for the future version of the National Building Code of Canada. Commonly used combination rules to estimate the peak responses of multi‐degree‐of‐freedom (MDOF) systems are the square root of sum of squares rule and the complete quadratic combination rule. However, the probability that the peak response of a MDOF system exceeds the one estimated by using these rules with the peak modal responses from the uniform hazard spectra cannot be inferred directly. The assessment of the probability of exceedance of the peak response of MDOF systems is presented by considering that the uncertainty in seismic excitation due to all potential earthquakes can be lumped in the power spectral density function of the ground acceleration with uncertain model parameters. This probability is evaluated based on the random vibration of linear systems and the first‐order reliability method. It is found that the under‐ or over‐estimations are less than about 5 or 10% if the modal contributions are not within 10–90% of, or not within 20–80% of, the absolute sum of the effective modal peak responses, respectively. Otherwise, severe under‐ or over‐estimation could result. Copyright © 2002 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.170 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it