Effective Moment of Inertia of Beam-Slab Section under Lateral Load
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study developed the modified equivalent frame method, using column elements and equivalent slab-beam elements for two-way slab systems under lateral loads.A detailed comparative study between the F.E analysis, which is based on the three dimensional full width of slab, and 3D frame analysis using different types of effective moment of inertia of beam-slab section.The purpose of this step is to choose an appropriate model of effective width of slab to represent the full width of slab under lateral loads.The dynamic analysis was done using finite element procedure provided by ETABS.Parametric studies were carried out to evaluate the effects of several factors such as panel of slab aspect ratio, column aspect ratio, column to span ratio, irregularity in plan of buildings and height of buildings.Two heights of buildings were considered for those above mentioned factors, these are (45m and 75m).This study presents the modified beam model, which gives the effective moment inertia of slab-beam system under lateral load.The response of the proposed model gives a good result in comparison with F.E idealization with small error range from (2-5) % for displacement and frequency and (5-8) % for base shear and base moment Keywords: Two-way slab, Moment of Inertia of Beam-Slab Section, Lateral Load.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".