Performance assessment of various seismic resistant systems for a multistory structure in different seismic zones of Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to present the variations of optimal seismic control of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) structure using different structural systems. Different third-dimensional mathematical models are used to examine the responses of multistory flexibly connected frames subjected to earthquake excitations. Design/methodology/approach This paper examined a G + 50 multi-storied high-rise structure, which is analyzed using different combinations of moment resistant frames, shear walls, seismic outrigger systems and seismic dampers to observe the effectiveness during ground motion against soft soil conditions. The damping coefficients of added dampers, providing both upper and lower levels are taken into consideration. A finite element modeling and analysis is generated. Then the nature of the structure exposed to ground motion is captured with response spectrum analysis, using BNBC-2020 for four different seismic zones in Bangladesh. Findings The response of the structure is investigated according to the amplitude of the displacements, drifts, base shear, stiffness and torsion. The numerical results indicate that adding dampers at the base level can be the most effective against seismic control. However, placing an outrigger bracing system at the middle and top end with shear wall can be the most effective for controlling displacements and drifts. Originality/value The response of high-rise structures to seismic forces in Bangladesh’s soft soil conditions is examined at various levels in this study. This study is an original research which contributes to the knowledge to build earthquake resisting high-rises in Bangladesh.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".