MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396237414 · doi:10.1061/jsendh.steng-12366

Multiobjective Structural Layout Optimization of Tall Buildings Subjected to Dynamic Wind Loads

2024· article· en· W4396237414 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 Structural Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringWind engineeringComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tall building design process typically goes through a time-consuming iterative procedure to ensure the cost efficiency of the proposed structural system, especially in the conceptual design stage where the layout is designed. Despite that, this procedure does not guarantee to yield an optimal layout. Consequently, an automated layout optimization procedure will result in a more economical and sustainable design. This paper presents a novel multiobjective lateral load resisting system (LLRS) (i.e., shear walls) layout optimization framework provided for dynamically sensitive tall buildings subjected to a wind load time history. The developed framework relies on an artificial neural network (ANN) surrogate model for constraints and objective function evaluation to reduce the computational time of the optimization process. The adopted surrogate model is built based on an automated finite element models-generated database using MATLAB code via the Open Application Program Interface of the ETABS software. The ANN surrogate model proved its efficiency in capturing complex variations in the structural response with a correlation coefficient that ranges between 90% and 98%. A nongradient optimization algorithm (NSGA-II) is adopted to identify the optimal shear wall layout to resist the applied dynamic wind load. In order to reduce the number of optimal layout solutions on the Pareto front, a pruning algorithm is used to limit the optimal solutions to 24 layouts. This will enable designers to use the direct selection method to choose an appropriate layout that fits the project’s objectives. Also, a case study building is presented where the optimized results are analyzed and discussed in the numerical example to verify the effectiveness of the proposed optimization framework.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.207 · 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