Seismic ratcheting of eccentric gravity loaded moment‐resisting frame buildings
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
Structures may predominantly inelastically deform in a single direction during earthquakes and incur greater damage. This behavior is known as seismic ratcheting and can be caused by eccentric gravity loads. Code clauses were introduced in Canada and New Zealand to amplify displacements obtained from static analysis methods to consider seismic ratcheting effects. However, such clauses are based on analyses of reinforced concrete (RC) wall or single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) structures, and methods to mitigate seismic ratcheting behavior were not explicitly provided. In this study, parametric analyses of steel and RC moment resisting frame buildings were performed to evaluate the adequacy of code clauses, identify parameters which influence seismic ratcheting behavior, and propose methods to mitigate such behavior. It was found that the New Zealand code underestimated the displacement increase for RC buildings, though it was able to envelope the displacement increase for steel buildings while the Canadian code was conservative. Additionally, the displacement increase was found to be sensitive to the building’s post-yield behavior and ground motion properties. However, assumptions of these properties during design may not be reflective of the actual building and seismic conditions, indicating that a reliable estimate of the increase in displacement is difficult to obtain. Instead, employing mitigation measures to reduce seismic ratcheting effects, such as designing to higher seismic demands, adding a secondary structural system to increase the building’s post-elastic stiffness, or providing more balanced lateral strengths after adjusting for eccentric gravity load effects are better measures to counter seismic ratcheting effects caused by eccentric gravity loads.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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