MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380361381 · doi:10.54338/27382656-2023.4-001

An Engineering Comment for Simply Accelerating Seismic Response History Analysis of Mid-Rise Steel-Structure Buildings

2023· article· en· W4380361381 on OpenAlexafffund
Aram Soroushian, Abdolreza S. Moghadam, A. Sabzei, Saeed Amiri, Aram Saaed, Ali Yahyapour

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Architectural and Engineering Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersInternational Institute of Earthquake Engineering and SeismologyPolytechnique Montréal
KeywordsResponse analysisSeismic analysisAccelerationGround motionResponse timeComputer scienceStructural engineeringStatic analysisResponse spectrumSimple (philosophy)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Response history analysis using a time integration method is a powerful versatile tool in accessing structures seismic behaviours. To reduce the analysis run-time, a technique was proposed in 2008 for time integration with steps larger than the steps of ground motions. The technique has been implemented in seismic assessment of frames, buildings, bridges, silos, etc., leading to considerable reductions in the analysis run-time, without notable effect on the response accuracy. The technique has recently been named as the SEB THAAT (Step- Enlargement-Based Time-History-Analysis-Acceleration-Technique). To use the SEB THAAT, the smallest dominant period of the response needs to be available prior to the analysis. In this paper, concentrating on 5-20-floor steel-structure buildings, a simple engineering comment is proposed that eliminates this need. As a result, in response history analysis of mid-rise steel-structure buildings subjected to ground motion, by using the proposed comment, we may reduce the analysis run-time, significantly, without any initial information about the response. The reduction is 50% for the linear analyses.

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)0.002
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 score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 venueJournal of Architectural and Engineering ResearchSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207