Seismic response estimation of steel plate shear walls using nonlinear static methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the major components for performance based seismic design is accurate estimation of critical seismic demand parameters. While nonlinear seismic analysis is the most appropriate analysis method for estimation of seismic demand parameters, this method is very time consuming and complex. Single mode pushover analysis method, N2 method and multi-mode pushover analysis method, modal pushover analysis (MPA) are two nonlinear static methods that have recently been used for seismic performance evaluation of few lateral load-resisting systems. This paper further investigates the applicability of N2 and MPA methods for estimating the seismic demands of ductile unstiffened steel plate shear walls (SPSWs). Three different unstiffened SPSWs (4-, 8-, and 15-storey) designed according to capacity design approach were analysed under artificial and real ground motions for Vancouver. A comparison of seismic response quantities such as, height-wise distribution of floor displacements, storey drifts estimated using N2 and MPA methods with more accurate nonlinear seismic analysis indicates that both N2 and MPA procedures can reasonably estimates the peak top displacements for low-rise SPSW buildings. In addition, MPA procedure provides better predictions of inter-storey drifts for taller SPSW. The MPA procedure has been extended to provide better estimate of base shear of SPSW.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".