Comparison of Dual System of Steel Moment frame and Thin steel Plate shear walls with Dual system of Steel moment frame and cross Bracing or Chevron with a Design Method based on Performance levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various systems are applied to counteract lateral forces and especially the earthquake force, including: dual systems that include combined system of moment frame and other resistant systems. In 2800 code system, dual systems of steel moment frame include moment frame and the variety of braces and steel shear wall 4 is not mentioned. Only in the code system of the law of Canada (CAS, 1994) a part is explicitly assigned to this element bearing. Recently, among the methods for designing structures against earthquakes, method of design based on performance levels is taken into consideration, due to taking the inelastic behaviour of structures in the instruction of FEMA274, FEMA273, and ATC40 into account. In this paper, dual systems including intermediate moment frames and thin steel moment frame and intermediate moment frame and convergent braces are used in different frames and performance point of them is obtained using Capacity spectrum method and is compared to each other. Also coefficient of thin steel shear walls and the rate of energy loss of the dual systems are investigated. Soft-waresSAP2000 and ANSYS are used for modeling and analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".