Analysis of Coupled Lateral-Torsional-Pounding Responses of One-Storey Asymmetric Adjacent Structures Subjected to Bi-Directional Ground Motions Part II: Spatially Varying Ground Motion Input
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
This is the second paper presenting numerical results of a parametric study of seismic induced lateral-torsional-pounding responses of an asymmetric and a symmetric one-storey adjacent structure. The accompany paper (Part I) (Gong and Hao 2004) assumed ground motion input at all structural supports as uniform. Torsional responses are generated because of inherent structural eccentricity and eccentric pounding. In reality, seismic ground motion at different structural supports inevitably varies owing to wave propagation. Spatially varying ground motion will induce torsional responses of structures, and generate out-of-phase responses between adjacent structures. Thus it might have a significant effect on coupled lateral-torsional-pounding responses. This paper studies the ground motion spatial variation effect. For comparison purpose, same adjacent structure models and impact element used in Part I of this study are adopted here again. 20 sets of spatially varying ground motion time histories are stochastically simulated. All the time histories are compatible with the Newmark-Hall design response spectrum with 5% damping and normalized to 0.5g. The spatial variation of any two simulated time histories is compatible with an empirical coherency loss function. Coupled lateral-torsional-pounding responses of the two structures to the simulated ground motions are calculated. Discussions on the ground motion spatial variation effects are made.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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