MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313829087 · doi:10.3390/civileng4010003

Studying and Analyzing the Seismic Performance of Concrete Moment-Resisting Frame Buildings

2023· article· en· W4313829087 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohamed Algamati, Abobakr Al-Sakkaf, Eslam Mohammed Abdelkader, Ashutosh Bagchi

Bibliographic record

VenueCivilEng · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftwareStructural engineeringSeismic analysisResponse spectrumFrame (networking)Reinforced concreteEarthquake simulationGround motionSeismic loadingIncremental Dynamic AnalysisComputer scienceEngineeringCivil engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, due to environmental changes, the condition of buildings can be in danger. In order to protect the performance of existing buildings, it is important to investigate the seismic behaviour of building structure subjected to earthquake excitation. In addition, it is important to study the advanced level of ductile design recommended by current codes. In the immediate future, lateral load resistance needs to be evaluated precisely. For the purpose of analyzing the seismic responses of reinforced concrete (RC) buildings in this project, 6- and 12-story frames of representative buildings are modeled in this research paper. The response spectrum analysis is deployed for a multi-degree-of-freedom system exposed to seismic waves (earthquake) in the City of Vancouver. Hence, the seismic nature of Vancouver City is emulated by the resulting response spectra using ground motion records (GMR). Ultimately, for concluding the average displacement as well as the base shear of the structures, a time-history analysis is investigated. In this regard, the SAP2000 and ETABS software are utilized for analyzing seismic performances. In addition, a comparison is presented between previous studies that used the IDARC2D software and the proposed results that used the ETABS software. It is found that the applied cases are not overlapping the limit of the NBCC 2015 Code. Consequently, after investigation, it is evident that the 3D software is much more accurate than the 2D software.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCivilEngSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207