Measured natural periods of concrete shear wall buildings: insights for the design of Canadian buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Structural engineers routinely use rational dynamic analysis methods for the seismic analysis of buildings. In linear analysis based on modal superposition or response spectrum approaches, the overall response of a structure (for instance, base shear or inter-storey drift) is obtained by combining the responses in several vibration modes. These modal responses depend on the input load, but also on the dynamic characteristics of the building, such as its natural periods, mode shapes, and damping. At the design stage, engineers can only predict the natural periods using eigenvalue analysis of structural models or empirical equations provided in building codes. However, once a building is constructed, it is possible to measure more precisely its dynamic properties using a variety of in situ dynamic tests. In this paper, we use ambient motions recorded in 27 reinforced concrete shear wall (RCSW) buildings in Montréal to examine how various empirical models to predict the natural periods of RCSW buildings compare to the periods measured in actual buildings under ambient loading conditions. We show that a model in which the fundamental period of RCSW buildings varies linearly with building height would be a significant improvement over the period equation proposed in the 2010 National Building Code of Canada. Models to predict the natural periods of the first two torsion modes and second sway modes are also presented, along with their uncertainty.
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 | 0.001 | 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".