MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088846766 · doi:10.1080/0305215x.2012.654788

Configuration optimization of dampers for adjacent buildings under seismic excitations

2012· article· en· W2088846766 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Optimization · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration Control and Rheological Fluids
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDamperStructural engineeringGenetic algorithmVibrationCoupling (piping)EngineeringControl theory (sociology)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsPhysicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Passive coupling of adjacent structures is known to be an effective method to reduce undesirable vibrations and structural pounding effects. Past results have shown that reducing the number of dampers can considerably decrease the cost of implementation and does not significantly decrease the efficiency of the system. The main objective of this study was to find the optimal arrangement of a limited number of dampers to minimize interstorey drift. Five approaches to solving the resulting bi-level optimization problem are introduced and examined (exhaustive search, inserting dampers, inserting floors, locations of maximum relative velocity and a genetic algorithm) and the numerical efficiency of each method is examined. The results reveal that the inserting damper method is the most efficient and reliable method, particularly for tall structures. It was also found that increasing the number of dampers does not necessarily increase the efficiency of the system. In fact, increasing the number of dampers can exacerbate the dynamic response of the system.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · 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