Analysis of Coupled Lateral-Torsional-Pounding Responses of One-Storey Asymmetric Adjacent Structures Subjected to Bi-Directional Ground Motions Part I: Uniform Ground Motion Input
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents results of a parametric study of seismic induced lateral-torsional-pounding responses of an asymmetric and a symmetric one-storey system subjected to bi-directional ground motion. The properties of the symmetric model are fixed, while the vibration frequency and eccentricity of the asymmetric model vary in the numerical computation. 20 sets of bi-directional horizontal earthquake ground motion time histories are numerically simulated for the analysis. All the simulated motions are compatible individually with the Newmark-Hall design response spectrum with 5% damping and normalized to 0.5g. Ensemble mean peak responses of the two systems to the 20 sets ground motions are estimated. Both linear elastic and nonlinear inelastic behaviours are studied. Effects of torsional stiffness, structural vibration frequency, eccentricities, and initial gap between two structures are investigated. Numerical results are presented in dimensionless form and compared with the code torsional provisions. In this paper, the input ground motion time histories at all the structural supports are assumed to be uniform. An accompany paper of this study is devoted to discuss the effect of the spatially varying ground motion on coupled lateral-torsional-pounding responses of the adjacent structures (Hao and Gong 2005).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".