Adaptable dual control systems. a comparative parametric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structural control through energy dissipation systems has been increasingly implemented internation-ally in the last years and has proven to be a most promising strategy for earthquake safety of the structures. The control concept is based on the integration of passive damping devices within the struc-ture for the necessary energy dissipation and the elastic response of the primary system. Adaptable dual control systems (ADCS) presented in this paper, consist of tension-only bracing members with closed circuit and a hysteretic damper of steel plates. The implementation of ADCS in frame structures enables a dual function of the component members, leading to two practically uncoupled systems, i.e. the primary frame, responsible for the static vertical and horizontal forces and the bracing-damper mechanism, for the earthquake forces and the necessary energy dissipation. ADCS are investigated and compared in their energy dissipation behavior for three differing confi gurations of the bracing-damper mechanism. In all cases the hysteretic damper utilizes effectively the relative displacements between its connection joints, i.e. a bracing and a primary frame’s member, through its own yielding deforma-tions for the necessary energy dissipation. In the present paper parametric dynamic analyses of the SDOF system’s responses have been performed, based on three representative international earthquake motions of differing frequency contents. A nonlinear link parameter, defi ned as the ratio of the stiffness to the yield force of the hysteretic damper, DR, characterizes the behavior of the controlled systems in each confi guration. Optimum DR values are proposed for each system confi guration in achieving high energy dissipation capacity, while preventing possible increase of the maximum base shear and relative displacements.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".