Features of the design solutions of high-rise buildings of the trunk-hanging bearing system
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
The construction of high-rise buildings in conditions of dense urban development in the 1960s led to the introduction of a structural system of high-rise buildings with a load-bearing core. One of its varieties is the suspension system, which was implemented during the construction of unique facilities around the world. Many suspended buildings have become part of the architectural heritage of major cities such as Mexico City, Johannesburg, London, Vancouver and Hong Kong. The main advantage of high-rise buildings of the trunk-suspended type is the rational use of urban space. At the same time, the implementation of such objects is technically difficult. The calculation methods that existed at that time could not determine the behavior of suspended structures under seismic influences. This prevented the widespread use of the suspension system in the construction of high-rise buildings in the past. Modern methods of calculating mathematical models and modern computing systems make it possible to perform complex tasks in the field of dynamic linear and nonlinear oscillations, in particular oscillations of suspended structures of high-rise buildings. This leads to a renewed interest in suspended high-rise buildings. The accumulated experience in the design and construction of these buildings should be used in new projects including those being built in seismically active areas. This article presents an analysis of the design solutions of some high-rise buildings with rigid core and assessment of the seismic resistance of such buildings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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