Nonlinear Dynamic Response of Single-Degree-of-Freedom Systems Subjected to Along-Wind Loads. I: Parametric Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lateral strength and stiffness requirements due to wind loads usually govern the design of tall buildings. The current building codes in the US, Canada, and Europe recognize the first significant yield point as an ultimate limit state. Consequently, the current design practices ignore the plastic capacity of structural systems in the nonlinear range, which could result in overdesigned buildings. Thus, the classical linear-elastic design arguments shall be reexamined with consideration of performance-based wind design (PBWD) approaches, innovative technologies, and materials. We are presenting two companion papers to demonstrate the benefits of considering the nonlinear capacity of structural systems in the design of wind-excited buildings. In this paper, Part I, we have postulated and then proved the capability of self-centering systems in controlling the possible damage accumulation in structural systems subjected to along-wind loads. Our arguments are based on an extensive parametric study through nonlinear time history analyses considering peak and residual ductility-demands, normalized hysteretic energy dissipation, and the rate of damage accumulation as performance indicators. Overall, the results of the parametric study revealed that self-centering systems could benefit the most from the ductility-based design due to their inherent recentering capability, higher energy dissipation, and lower sensitivity to wind duration. Consistent with the notion of PBWD, for self-centering systems, the companion Part II paper demonstrates the benefits of the ductility-based wind design in terms of economics and safety through structural reliability analysis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".