MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130002269 · doi:10.1002/eqe.1192

Story‐by‐story estimation of the stiffness parameters of laterally‐torsionally coupled buildings using forced or ambient vibration data: I. Formulation and verification

2011· article· en· W2130002269 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Roshanak Omrani, Ralph E. Hudson, Ertuǧrul Taciroğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Southern CaliforniaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsVibrationStiffnessTorsion (gastropod)Structural engineeringBenchmark (surveying)AmplitudeAlgorithmStiffness matrixEngineeringComputer scienceAcousticsGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY A new parameter estimation algorithm is described for identifying the stiffness properties of torsionally coupled shear buildings from their linear response due to ambient excitations or during low‐amplitude forced‐vibration tests. The algorithm is based on the time‐domain equations of motion, and yields estimates of the stiffness properties using a measure of the equilibrium of forces acting on each floor over a time interval. The banded structure of the stiffness matrix — a property intrinsic to torsion‐shear buildings — is exploited to decompose the initial inverse problem into several problems of reduced size. This decomposition allows the identification of lateral and torsional stiffnesses of individual stories, independent of the others. The algorithm utilizes vibration data where input excitation is known/measured, which is typical for forced‐vibration tests and earthquakes. If the ambient vibrations of the structure are adequately uncorrelated to the (unknown) external forces that induce such vibrations, then the algorithm can also be modified for output‐only system identification. The proposed algorithm is verified — and its various attributes are investigated — using simulation data from the ‘Analytical Phase I’ of the IASC (International Association for Structural Control)‐ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) benchmark studies. The companion article is devoted to the algorithm's application to experimental data, using data from the ‘Experimental Phase’ of the same benchmark studies. Copyright © 2011 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake Engineering & Structural DynamicsSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207