Errors caused by peak factor assumptions in response‐spectrum‐based 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 The modal combination rules commonly used in response spectrum analyses implicitly assume that the peak factor associated with the response quantity of interest is equal to the peak factors of the contributing modal responses. In this paper, we examine the validity of this assumption and demonstrate that it causes the modal combination rules to over‐represent the contribution of the higher modes of vibration to the total response and under‐represent the contribution of the lower modes. Consequently, a response‐spectrum‐based analysis can yield a biased estimate for the peak value of a response quantity when two or more well‐separated modal frequencies make significant contributions to the total response. To correct this potential bias in response‐spectrum‐based estimates, we develop a procedure for estimating the peak factors that is suitable to the response spectrum analysis calculations commonly used in the current design practice. Examples are presented to demonstrate the proper use and potential impact of the proposed procedure. Copyright © 2015 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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