Comparison of the Performance Point Determination Approaches Proposed in TEC2007 and FEMA440
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mevcut betonarme yapı sistemlerinin performansa dayalı hesabında, kapasite ve istem eğrilerinin kesiştirilmesi ile elde edilen performans noktasının belirlenmesi için farklı yaklaşımlar bulunmaktadır.Deprem Bölgelerinde Yapılacak Binalar Hakkında Yönetmelik (DBYBHY2007) de, TB'den daha uzun peryotlu yapılar için eşit yerdeğiştirme prensibine dayalı bir yöntem izlenirken, FEMA440 da efektif periyot ve sönüm tanımlarına dayalı bir ardışık yaklaşım yöntemi önerilmektedir.Bu çalışmada, düzenli betonarme yapı sistemlerini temsil edecek şekilde seçilen, farklı kat sayılarına sahip çerçeve ve perde-çerçeve türü taşıyıcı sistemi olan binalar üzerinde çalışılmıştır.Bu binalar için DBYBHY2007 ve FEMA440 da tanımlanan performans noktası belirleme yaklaşımları kullanılarak elde edilen deprem istemleri, birbirleriyle ve "kesin çözüm" olarak kabul edilen Zaman Tanım Alanında Doğrusal Olmayan Analiz (ZTADOA) ile bulunan deprem istemleriyle karşılaştırılmıştır.Bu istemler arasında tepe yerdeğiştirmesi, taban kesme kuvveti, göreli kat ötelemeleri bulunmaktadır.İncelenen sistemlerde, DBYBHY2007 ile belirlenen istemlerin "kesin çözüm" olarak kabul edilen ZTADOA sonuçlarına daha yakın olduğu gözlenmiştir.There are different approaches in the performance based design of the existing reinforced concrete structures, regarding the determination of the intersection point of capacity and demand curves.While the equivalent displacement approach is employed in Turkish Earthquake Code (TEC2007), a successive approximation technique based on the effective period and damping is suggested in FEMA440.Frame type and wall-frame type regular structures with different number of stories are selected to discuss the approaches on the performance point determination techniques proposed in TEC2007 and FEMA440.The resulting earthquake demands are compared with each other and also those obtained from the nonlinear time history analyses.Top displacement, base shear, relative story drift are amongst the discussed demand parameters.It is shown that for the structures considered in this study, the demands obtained from the TEC2007 procedure are more close to the nonlinear time history analyses results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".