Investigation of the Separation Distance for Preventing Seismic Effects on Reinforced Concrete Buildings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the importance of leaving a separation (earthquake joint) distance in the design against structural movements and the damages caused by earthquakes were examined.Possible collision and pounding scenarios between adjacent buildings that can occur through various combinations were presented by the help of figures.The consequences that may arise if necessary precautions are not taken were explained.Two adjacent buildings with different story heights and dynamic characteristics were modelled separately with ETABS software in accordance with Turkish Seismic Code (TBDY-18).In addition, earthquake analysis was performed.The building models consisted of two adjacent blocks.During the design reinforced concrete columns with beam slab system were modelled as structural members.Reinforced concrete columns and beams were implemented to the system as frame elements.It was clearly seen that the results obtained with the empirical formulas specified in the regulations and the results of the detailed analysis are not matching with each other.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it