Investigation Correlations between Strong-motion Duration and Structural Damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of studies have been conducted on the investigation of the effects of the strong-motion duration on structural damage. However the conclusions from these studies are very contradictory. Some studies report significant effects while others report minimal or no effects. The objective of this study is to investigate the correlations between the duration of earthquake strong motion and the structural damage. For the purpose of this study, three reinforced concrete frame buildings (4-, 10-, and 16-storey) were designed according to the 2005 Edition of the National Building Code of Canada. The buildings were assumed to be in Vancouver which is in a high seismic zone in Canada. Nonlinear time-history analyses were conducted on the three buildings using 40 simulated accelerograms representative of the characteristics of ground motions in Vancouver as seismic excitations. The ground motions were scaled to the spectral acceleration at the dominant period of the building. Different definitions of strong-motion duration are considered in the study including uniform duration, bracketed duration, significant duration, and effective duration. The structural damage is represented by interstorey drift, column ductility, beam ductility, and base shear. Based on the results from the study, it was found that there is no correlation between the strong-motion duration and the structural damage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".