A new pushover procedure for two‐way asymmetric‐plan tall buildings under bidirectional earthquakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Conventional pushover analyses despite of extensive applications are unable to estimate the general responses of asymmetric‐plan tall buildings because of ignoring the effects of higher modes and torsion. A consecutive modal pushover procedure is one of the recent nonlinear static pushover procedures that used to analyse the seismic response of one‐way asymmetric‐plan tall buildings under one‐directional seismic ground motions. In this paper, a modified consecutive modal pushover procedure (MCMP) has been proposed to estimate the seismic demands of two‐way asymmetric‐plan tall buildings under two horizontal components of earthquakes simultaneously. The accuracy of the MCMP procedure is evaluated using different buildings and comparing with the results of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) procedures, the practical modal pushover procedure and nonlinear time history analyses as an exact solution. The results show the proposed MCMP procedure is able to estimate the displacements and storey drifts accurately and introduces a great improvement in predicting the plastic hinge rotations. 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".