Assessment of mitigation alternatives for differential shortening in high-rise reinforced concrete buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Selecting appropriate structural system for reinforced concrete (RC) buildings is essential in the design process to satisfy serviceability and strength requirements. Using ordinary analysis (OA) may result in inaccurate estimation of differential shortenings (DS) between vertical supporting elements which might lead to structural and architectural problems. Efficiency of staged analysis including time-dependent effects (SAT) has been recently recognized for the analysis of these buildings due to considering the sequential nature of construction. In this research, eight RC buildings with heights ranging between 35 and 175 m and various structural systems, namely rigid frames (RF), shear walls (SW), wall frames (WF), and tube in tube (TT), are analyzed. An assessment is conducted for the adequacy of three mitigation alternatives to decrease changes between DS estimated using OA and SAT. In Alternative 1, cross sections of all vertical elements (columns and shear walls) are increased by 50%. Alternative 2 is performed by iteratively proportioning the dimensions of internal columns without changing the cross sections of edge and corner vertical elements. One outrigger system is introduced along the height of buildings with WF and TT systems in Alternative 3. Analysis of the eight buildings is implemented by developing a numerical model considering the construction stages and time-dependent effects. The alternatives assessment is conducted by comparing differential displacements (DD), bending moments, and shearing forces before and after mitigation obtained from OA and SAT. The numerical results showed that Alternative 1 is not efficient in mitigating the differences between the OA and SAT for all the studied buildings. However, an optimum solution can be achieved using the Alternative 2 for all investigated systems. Also, Alternative 3 was found adequate in partially mitigating the differences between the two analyses for the buildings with WF and TT systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".