Representation of Bidirectional Ground Motions for Design Spectra in Building Codes
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
The 2009 NEHRP Provisions modified the definition of horizontal ground motion from the geometric mean of spectral accelerations for two components to the peak response of a single lumped mass oscillator regardless of direction. These maximum‐direction (MD) ground motions operate under the assumption that the dynamic properties of the structure (e.g., stiffness, strength) are identical in all directions. This assumption may be true for some in‐plan symmetric structures, however, the response of most structures is dominated by modes of vibration along specific axes (e.g., longitudinal and transverse axes in a building), and often the dynamic properties (especially stiffness) along those axes are distinct. In order to achieve structural designs consistent with the collapse risk level given in the NEHRP documents, we argue that design spectra should be compatible with expected levels of ground motion along those principal response axes. The use of MD ground motions effectively assumes that the azimuth of maximum ground motion coincides with the directions of principal structural response. Because this is unlikely, design ground motions have lower probability of occurrence than intended, with significant societal costs. We recommend adjustments to make design ground motions compatible with target risk levels.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it