Structural Comparison of Shear Walls vs Bracing in Concrete Frames Applying Value Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The Honduran Construction Code (CHOC-08) prohibits the construction of common rigid frame systems for concrete frameworks for buildings in the Municipality of the Central District (MDC).Due to this, it's necessary to consider frames that work with earthquake-resistant elements such as shear walls or braces.The study's objective was to determine which of two systems is the most efficient system in terms of seismic performance for a 30-story building based on structural variables.Methods.Structural modeling and Value Engineering have been used to meet the objective.The structural variables considered in the comparison were displacements, stiff-ness, structural weight, seismic absorption, and distribution of internal forces.To determine the weight/relevance of each of these, 16 self-prepared surveys were applied to teachers, graduates, and students of the Master of Structures at UNITEC.Results: Both shear walls and braces have shown significant structural benefits in the modeled frames.however, when applying the weighted analysis with the previously mentioned variables, the shear walls and braces have obtained ratings of 87.4% and 62.3%, respectively.Conclusions: It has been determined that shear walls are more efficient elements than braces in terms of their seismic performance due to the results obtained from modeling in conjunction with the application of Value Engineering.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".