MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301401473 · doi:10.14288/1.0063038

Nonlinear response of high-rise buildings: effect of directionality of ground motions

2011· article· en· W2301401473 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic and Structural Analysis of Tall Buildings
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDirectionalityNonlinear systemStructural engineeringMathematicsPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The response of high-rise buildings to strong ground shaking depends on ground motion parameters namely: intensity, frequency content, duration and horizontal ground motion directionality. The latter has been a concern to engineers for several decades in seismic design. The prediction of the direction where ground motion will hit the building is rendered difficult because in many regions faults are not mapped to a great extent, and for regions were fault locations are known accurate prediction of ground motion directionality is impeded because ground motions have unique wave propagation characteristics along its path. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of ground motion directionality on the nonlinear dynamic response of a high-rise building. The influence of ground motion directionality was evaluated for a building case study. The building was 44 storey, and resembled general features of structural configuration commonly provided to reinforced concrete high-rise in Vancouver city. The nonlinear time history analysis (NLTHA) method was used to estimate seismic response of the building model to bi-directional ground shaking. This method was systematically applied for 40 ground motion component angles of incidence, which accounted for different ground motion directionalities ranging from 0 to 360 degrees. A suite of 3 pairs of horizontal ground motion representative of seismic hazard 2% in 50 years in Vancouver was considered for analysis. The ground motion directionality had significant effect over the calculated building seismic response. In some scenarios at critical angle of incidence the calculated floor displacements and interstorey drifts were 4 times as large as the displacements and drifts calculated for ground motion at 0 degrees angle of incidence. The largest building response envelope was obtained for several critical angles of incidence of the ground motion components. Critical angles of incidence were distributed over the entire building’s height. The relevance of ground motion directionality for seismic design of high-rise buildings was clearly demonstrated. The NLTHA used in conventional design practice still ignores ground motion directionality. It is concluded there is a need to develop the tools engineers can readily use to consider ground motion directionality in seismic design of modern high-rise buildings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.158 · 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