Staged‐construction analysis of high‐rise buildings: A literature review and future perspectives
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
Summary Staged‐construction analysis (SCA) has recently become a noticeable trend for estimating the design forces and deformations for high‐rise buildings (HRBs). SCA is a nonlinear step‐by‐step analysis that simulates the construction activities and conditions. It is a numerical simulation that considers loading history during construction, time‐dependent material behavior, environmental conditions, and any special measures taken by contractors to limit differential axial shortening during the construction process. However, building codes and guidelines do not provide adequate provisions that clearly identify how to approach this type of analysis. This paper presents a comprehensive state‐of‐the‐art review on how SCA was previously adopted in theoretical research and how it was applied in real buildings. It begins by critically reviewing different research work on SCA. Afterward, the paper puts forward the recent fundamentals of conducting SCA. Then, a series of studies about verifying SCA as practical analysis procedure using field measurements are then presented. In addition, the current paper reviews how SCA can specifically affect post‐tension slabs. Based on this review, several recommendations are provided to help in shaping the future code provisions, add to the development of recent practices, and inspire future research. The conducted review concludes that more investigations should be performed to better understand the effect of considering SCA on the deformations and design forces during HRB analysis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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