MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413009998 · doi:10.1061/jsendh.steng-13629

Static Analysis of Nonsymmetric High-Rise Buildings with Asymmetric Shear Walls under Lateral Loads

2025· article· en· W4413009998 on OpenAlexaff
Payam Pezeshky, Arash Sahraei, Rong Feng, Siriwut Sasibut, Magdi Mohareb

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic and Structural Analysis of Tall Buildings
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShear wallStructural engineeringShear (geology)GeologyStructural loadMaterials scienceGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study formulates a model to characterize the structural response of high-rise buildings with nonsymmetric plan layouts involving shear walls of general cross-section geometries acting as a lateral force resisting system, under the action of static lateral loads. The model idealizes the shear walls as flexible thin-walled members while enforcing the rigid diaphragm actions provided by the floors using kinematic constraints. The thin-walled beam finite elements idealizing the shear walls capture global and local warping effects. Two thin-walled beam solutions are developed, one capturing shear deformation effects and another one omitting them. Static condensation is performed to reduce the computational effort necessary to model the structure leading to only three degrees of freedom per floor. The condensed shear-deformable thin-walled beam finite element model is able to accurately predict the locations of the centers of rigidity, lateral displacements, and angles of twist of the floors, along with the shearing forces, bending moments, twisting moments, and bimoments within the shear walls demonstrated through comparisons with shell finite element modeling. The locations of the centers of rigidity as predicted by the shear deformable idealization are found to depend on the loading profile and the floor level. In contrast, the nonshear deformable idealization leads to universal centers of rigidity that depend solely on the shear wall plan layout, but independent of the load profile and floor level. This observation is exploited to develop an efficient analytical procedure to compute the location of the center of rigidity. While the center of rigidity locations predicted by the shear deformable and nonshear deformable solution drastically differ from one another for the lower floors, they are observed to closely approach one another for higher floors.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.198
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Structural EngineeringSame topicSeismic and Structural Analysis of Tall BuildingsFrench-language works237,207