Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings Equipped with Friction Dampers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Friction dampers dissipate energy through the friction that develops between two solid bodies sliding relative to one another. When a major earthquake occurs, the friction dampers slip at a predetermined load before yielding occurs in the members of a frame, which dissipate a major part of the energy. It saves the initial cost of new construction or retrofitting of existing buildings, with a very high energy dissipation. In this paper, the seismic performance of a 14 story moderately ductile concrete frame, designed based on the current edition of the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) has been studied with and without friction dampers. The building is assumed to be located in Victoria, BC, in the western part of Canada. Nonlinear dynamic time history using a set of ground motion records has been performed to determine their effects. The costs of the building frame with and without friction dampers have been evaluated for comparison. The seismic performance of the building in both cases have been evaluated using nonlinear dynamic analysis and the building with dampers has been found to achieve the desired level of performance without any significant damage in the frame.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".