Macro Modeling of Column Removal in RC Frames with Consideration of Importance Factor and Infill Walls
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
In this study, the effect of importance factor (IF) on RC frames with and without infill walls, in both with and without opening conditions, is evaluated against progressive collapse. For this purpose, RC building with the intermediate moment frame system for three levels of importance factor that these levels are intermediate, high, and very high IF is designed. OpenSees program is utilized for modeling RC frames. For this aim, the accuracy of modeling of column removal and infill walls are compared with experimental researches. In the present study, nonlinear dynamic analysis (NDA) and push-down analysis (PDA) were used for evaluating RC frames against progressive collapse in each column removal scenario. Analysis results showed that the effect of the importance factors in NDA and PDA are reduced to less than 24% and 13% when the infill walls are modeled in the frames. In the frame without infill walls, the influence of the importance factor is increased up to 36.1%. Also, in this study, it was found that the role of importance factors depends on the place of the removed column, which the effect of middle column removal is relatively twice than the corner column removal due to more redundancy. Other results about infill walls effects and opening in infill walls are presented in the paper. Finally, a proposed approach for column removal in NDA via OpenSees program is introduced, and its high accuracy is shown. This developed algorithm can remove any element of structure in different time intervals.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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