MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313389608 · doi:10.1061/41130(369)275

New Songdo International City Block D24, an Iconic and Efficient Twisted Tall Building Structure

2010· article· en· W2313389608 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Clark, D.M. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2010 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic and Structural Analysis of Tall Buildings
Canadian institutionsArup Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlock (permutation group theory)Computer scienceComputer graphics (images)Architectural engineeringEngineeringGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the structural design of a 50 story, twisted residential building structure. It presents an overview of methods employed in the design of the articulated structural shape. It outlines how the project team imposed this articulation without a significant increase in the use of structural materials beyond that typical for rectilinear tall residential apartment buildings. The column-free design consists of structural concrete dividing walls between five apartments on each floor plate, cantilevered in a radial arrangement from a central cylindrical concrete core. The arrangement of the walls is staggered and alternated between floors, and therefore achieves apparent long spans and column-free apartments. The design also allows the floor plates to be rotated sequentially up the height of the building without imposing torsional force on the central core, a common design challenge associated with towers with a twisted form. The paper details the design process, explaining the motives and constraints of the design, and shows how the unusual structural system was derived. The structural engineering design of the system is explained including discussion of load paths and deflection control. The associated structural consideration of seismic performance is briefly discussed. Finally, a comparison of material quantities is made against two other residential tower structures on the same site, which are mostly rectilinear in form. The comparison shows very similar material quantity use per unit floor area between the three designs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2010Same topicSeismic and Structural Analysis of Tall BuildingsFrench-language works237,207