MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389887681 · doi:10.1186/s44147-023-00341-2

Assessment of mitigation alternatives for differential shortening in high-rise reinforced concrete buildings

2023· article· en· W4389887681 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering and Applied Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringServiceability (structure)Shear wallBending momentOutriggerReinforced concreteCross laminated timberStructural systemComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.233 · 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