Seismic damage evaluation of unanchored nonstructural components under combined effects of horizontal and vertical near‐fault ground motions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract With consideration of seismic resilience, damage of nonstructural components (NSCs) attracts significant attentions. Most previous studies focused on dynamic behaviors of NSCs under horizontal excitations. Near‐fault earthquakes, however, have strong vertical ground motion components, but few studies assessed their influence on seismic damage of NSCs. In this study, the seismic responses of unanchored NSCs under near‐fault earthquakes with strong vertical components are investigated. Response history analyses of steel moment frames with different heights under near‐fault earthquakes are performed and the derived floor acceleration responses are taken as the inputs of unanchored NSCs. The sliding and rocking responses of NSCs under horizontal and vertical excitations are used to quantify the influence of near‐fault earthquake characteristics. The results highlighted that bidirectional excitations (horizontal & vertical) would elevate the uncertainty in the sliding demands of NSCs and more likely to induce the occurrence of overturning failures for slender NSCs. The relation between rocking demands of NSCs and common intensity measures like PFA would be weakened due to the presence of vertical excitations.
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 | 0.001 | 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".