Verification of Proposed Seismic Response Factors and Performance Assessment with the Economics of Code Designed High-Rise Steel Buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seismic response factors do not offer uniform margin of safety and economy of buildings for different seismic regions. To verify these factors, four high-rise regular steel buildings, ranging from 8 to 20 stories are selected and designed according to current design codes. These factors are estimated using a number of inelastic pushover analyses (IPAs) and incremental dynamic analyses (IDAs), and their respective safety margins are assessed. The results indicated a possibility of increasing design response factors. The selected buildings are redesigned and their performances are assessed and verified using the proposed increase in seismic design response factors. Cost comparison between the code designed buildings and the proposed seismic design factor buildings is made. The proposed study provides comparisons of seismic response factors between the code-designed buildings and alternative proposed design for the range of the selected buildings along with their economic benefits. The recommendations of this study may provide practical insights to the designers and stake holders to achieve more cost-effective and optimistic designs on a wide range of high-rise steel 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".