Directional alongwind and crosswind effects on the performance of a 15-storey steel braced frame building in seismic environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of crosswind loads on buildings has been studied since the 1980s, but only a few researchers reported on the nonlinear response of tall buildings under ultimate crosswind loads. Performance-based wind design procedures provide a structurally efficient and economical alternative to prescriptive code based design, however their establishment necessitates further research in the following areas: i) development of a straightforward procedure for the derivation of reliable wind time-history loadings from wind tunnel data; ii) assessment of the dynamic behavior of tall buildings excited by wind in the full range of response: linear-nonlinear-near collapse; and iii) quantification of the effect of directionality on building performance in the full range of response. Herein, local aerodynamic data are used to produce reliable estimations of the directional alongwind and crosswind time-history loadings for a 15-storey steel braced frame hospital building, in Montreal, Canada. The case study is designed to withstand the code-based wind and earthquake loads, as independent load combination cases. Then, advanced finite element models are employed to assess the effect of directional alongwind and crosswind loads on the building performance under increasing levels of input wind motion. Ten excitation angles from 0° to 90° are considered. Incremental dynamic analysis is employed to assess the building performance under recurring winds, including the wind directionality effect. To monitor fatigue failure, the rainflow counting method is used to approximate the number and amplitude of loading cycles exhibited by ductile brace members of the lateral force resisting system. • Performance-based methodology for the assessment of wind-sensitive buildings in the linear, nonlinear and near collapse range of response. • Alongwind and crosswind tunnel data for the derivation of reliable wind loadings. • Investigation of the wind directionality effect on the full range of structural response through collapse. • Consideration of fiber-based, nonlinear models for accurate wind response simulations. • Incremental dynamic analysis for alongwind and crosswind excitation, acting at various directions. • Insight in observed alongwind and crosswind failure mechanisms.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".