Verifying the periods of vibration for different structural systems using earthquake data and simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large fundamental period data from two sources are collected and compared with expressions from building codes and previous studies. The first data set is collected from 147 instrumented buildings with various lateral force resisting systems (LFRSs). The second set is obtained from the inelastic dynamic response simulation of 26 multi-story structures. Seven LFRSs are considered, including steel moment-resisting frames (SMRFs), reinforced concrete moment-resisting frames (RCMRFs), concentrically braced frames (CBFs), eccentrically braced frames (EBFs), RC shear walls (RCSWs), masonry buildings and pre-cast structures. It is concluded that the design provisions are conservative enough for SMRFs, RCMRFs, and CBFs. For low-to-medium rise RCSWs and EBFs along with low-rise masonry and pre-cast structures, recently proposed expressions in previous studies provide conservative estimates for the fundamental periods. More data is highly needed to arrive at a reliable formula for the design of high-rise RCSW structures in earthquake-prone regions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".