A seismic behavior of RCC high rise structure with and without outrigger and belt truss system for different earthquake zones and type of soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present era, there is more demand for high-rise buildings. The growing de- mand for high-rise buildings brings new difficulties and comes up with new safety precautions. With an increase in height of the structure, its rigidity reduces, making it difficult to withstand earthquake and wind effects, hence some preventative structural systems must be used. Some of them are bracings, shear walls, outrig- ger systems and belt truss systems etc. The outrigger and belt truss system is investigated in this study since it is the most effective method for high-rise buildings and skyscrapers. To prevent story drift and the rotational action of the core caused by seismic and wind forces, the external columns in an outrigger system are attached to the main inner or outer core using outrigger beams, walls, and trusses etc. at various floor levels. All external columns that are situated at the peripheral are connected together with truss elements in a belt truss system. This study investigates the comparison of the behavior of high-rise buildings with and without an outrigger system, and belt truss system for all seismic zones (zone II, III, IV and V) with different types of soil (hard, medium, soft). This study is carried out for 40 story buildings using response spectrum analysis. Analysis of the building is carried out by using ETABS 2018 software. The results are in the form of seismic responses like storey displacement, Storey drift, base shear are studied. Results show that the provision of an outrigger and belt truss system reduces the story displacement of the structure. After analysis and comparing the seismic responses of the structure, the building provided with the combination of outrigger and belt truss system perform better as compared to the only outrigger and belt truss system.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".