Seismic force amplification factors for telecommunication towers mounted on building rooftops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Telecommunication towers mounted on building rooftops are considered as \nflexible non-structural components from a building code perspective. In Canada, \nthese are known as Operational and Functional Components (OFCs). Due to \nlimited research on the seismic performance of OFCs, the current building code \nguidelines for seismic design of rooftop telecommunication towers are usually \nadequate only for very stiff towers. However, the behavior of flexible towers is \ndifferent and this paper is an attempt to provide guidance on the prediction of the \namplification of acceleration along the towers. Numerical simulations for four \ntelecommunications towers of different heights (10-30 m) and geometric \nproperties will be presented. These towers are assumed mounted on four buildings \nhaving different heights and lateral load resisting systems. The detailed finite \nelement model of each building-tower combination was subjected to two large \nsets of earthquakes: one set of records is compatible with the target uniform \nhazard spectra of the 2005 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) for \nMontreal, and the other set comprises 44 records classified according to their \npeak ground acceleration-to-velocity (a/v) ratio.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".