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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jamieson Robinson, Scott Gamble, Michael J. Wesolowsky, Graham Fitzgerald

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

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. 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. 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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