Ground motions selection and scaling for nonlinear dynamic analysis of structures located in Eastern North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the effectiveness of seven ground motion scaling methods and two spectral matching methods to achieve compatibility with the Canadian National Building Code (CNBC) 2005 uniform hazard spectrum for Montreal to perform nonlinear seismic analysis. Databases of 30 historical records and 30 Eastern North America simulated records have been selected to compute the reference mean seismic demand and its dispersion. The characteristics and destructive capacity of ground motions have been studied using a large number of indices computed from (i) the records themselves, (ii) a series of single degree of freedom structures, as well as (iii) a four-story steel frame. Record scaling methods to the target spectrum using (i) spectral intensity, (ii) reducing the mean square error, (iii) and minimizing dispersion as well as time domain spectral matching generated coherent seismic demand and dispersion in agreement with the reference values. Spectral matching to a specified elastic design spectrum does not reduce the dispersion of the nonlinear response. Therefore close spectral matching cannot be used to reduce the number of records to minimize the resources allocated in seismic safety assessment. At least seven records, as recommended in current CNBC and FEMA (2012) guidelines to compute an average response, should be used to characterize the nonlinear behaviour of structural systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".