Initial versus tangent stiffness‐based Rayleigh damping in inelastic time history seismic analyses
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
SUMMARY In the inelastic time history analyses of structures in seismic motion, part of the seismic energy that is imparted to the structure is absorbed by the inelastic structural model, and Rayleigh damping is commonly used in practice as an additional energy dissipation source. It has been acknowledged that Rayleigh damping models lack physical consistency and that, in turn, it must be carefully used to avoid encountering unintended consequences as the appearance of artificial damping. There are concerns raised by the mass proportional part of Rayleigh damping, but they are not considered in this paper. As far as the stiffness proportional part of Rayleigh damping is concerned, either the initial structural stiffness or the updated tangent stiffness can be used. The objective of this paper is to provide a comprehensive comparison of these two types of Rayleigh damping models so that a practitioner (i) can objectively choose the type of Rayleigh damping model that best fits her/his needs and (ii) is provided with useful analytical tools to design Rayleigh damping model with good control on the damping ratios throughout inelastic analysis. To that end, a review of the literature dedicated to Rayleigh damping within these last two decades is first presented; then, practical tools to control the modal damping ratios throughout the time history analysis are developed; a simple example is finally used to illustrate the differences resulting from the use of either initial or tangent stiffness‐based Rayleigh damping model. Copyright © 2013 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 | 0.001 | 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 it