MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329327710 · doi:10.2749/222137908796293235

The Supplementary Damping Advantage - Flexibility for a High-Rise Building

2008· article· en· W2329327710 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic and Structural Analysis of Tall Buildings
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Shear wallTowerHigh riseStructural systemStiffnessBuilding designArchitectural engineeringEngineeringStructural engineeringComputer scienceCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>In recent years in North America, there has been a growing trend towards using Supplementary Damping Systems (SDS) to improve the wind-induced dynamic behavior of mid-rise to high-rise buildings. During the design stages of a project, incorporating an SDS into the building is an efficient way to reduce expected tower motions and thereby enhances the comfort experience for the future occupants of the building. Likewise, the improvement in building dynamic performance can also be used to strategically optimize the structural system.</p><p>A design benefit analysis of an SDS is currently being applied to a proposed high-rise residential building in Toronto, Canada. For this project, Halcrow Yolles Structural Engineers and RWDI Motioneering Consulting Engineers have performed design assessments of the expected dynamic performance of the building. The original design of the tower’s lateral system was performed using conventional methods, with motion criteria satisfied by way of a coupled shear wall core to provide sufficient stiffness properties. As an option to the project developer, a study was conducted to investigate implementing an SDS to the original lateral system design to simultaneously: (a) minimize the thicknesses of the concrete core shear walls (thereby saving construction materials, costs, and maximizing useable floor space for the developer) and, (b) maintain the tower motions within acceptable comfort guidelines for future occupants.</p><p>A cost/benefit analysis has been performed which indicates that significant savings in structural costs (between $400,000 and $500,000) are possible, which can offset the expense of designing and constructing an SDS. “Green benefits” of saving concrete and reinforcing steel can translate into reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (CO2) of about 670 tons (the equivalent of removing about 143,000 cars from the road for one typical day in North America). These ‘green benefits’ can earn credits towards LEED certification or similar building credentials. As a second option for the developer, assessments indicate that by using an SDS five additional residential floors could be added without changes to the baseline structural core system, wall thicknesses, or unit layouts. This could result in approximately $30 million of additional sales revenue for the developer without significant modifications to the original design.</p>

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.229 · 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