A seismological method for estimating the long‐period transition period <i> T <sub>L</sub> </i> in the seismic building code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many changes have been made to the design response spectrum used in the ASCE 7 Standard in recent years. One parameter that has not been investigated or revisited since its first appearance in FEMA 450‐1/2003 is the long‐period transition period parameter, T L . The long‐period transition period parameter was introduced and defined as the corner period that marks the transition from the constant velocity to the constant displacement segments of the design response spectrum. The long‐period transition period parameter is primarily important for long‐period structures such as high‐rise buildings and bridges. The most current estimation of T L used in engineering design standards is loosely based on a correlation between modal magnitude M w and T L that does not account for stress drop Δ σ or the crustal velocity in the source region β . This study aims to include both Δ σ and β in its estimation of T L . Modal magnitude is obtained from disaggregation data from the 2018 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) for the conterminous United States (CONUS) and from the 2021 NSHM for Hawaii (HI). The parameter β is determined from previous literature. Then, inversion of ground motion models for Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) is used to determine Δ σ for CEUS events, and published information is used to determine Δ σ for Western United States (WUS) events and HI events. Then, the definition of the corner period is used to determine T L . The results yield a generally more conservative (or longer) estimation of T L than the estimation that is currently used in engineering design standards.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".