MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115696805 · doi:10.71846/18-wcee-0293

ASSESSMENT OF COLLAPSE SAFETY OF TORSIONAL SENSITIVE STEEL BUILDINGS UNDER BIDIRECTIONAL EXCITATIONS

2025· article· en· W7115696805 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Conference of Earthquake Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTorsion (gastropod)AccidentalStiffnessPerpendicularBuilding codeTorsion springNonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post-earthquake investigations showed that torsion-induced damage was among the causes of buildings collapse. In previous studies, researchers observed that accidental torsion could cause yielding of one braced frame, which, in turn, changes the center of rigidity toward the undamaged frame by increasing the inherent eccentricity with respect to the center of mass, CM. To account on these effects and those induced by bidirectional excitation and other sources, accidental torsion caused by accidental eccentricity (ea) was introduced in building codes to increase member sections resisting storey shear. The current Canadian National Building Code (NBC) considers accidental torsion caused by ea = ±10%Dnx, where Dnx is the plan dimension of the building at level x perpendicular to the direction of seismic loading. According with NBC provisions, a building is classified as torsionally sensitive, if the ratio Bx is greater than 1.7. Nonetheless, for regular buildings, the code allows considering ea = ±5%Dnx if dynamic analysis is employed. According to ASCE/SEI 7-16 standard, the torsional moments are computed for ea = ±5%Dnx, but for torsionally sensitive buildings, these are multiplied by a torsional amplification factor Ax. It is worth mentioning that a symmetric building that has relatively low torsional stiffness could be torsionally sensitive. To emphasize on the correlation between the predicted displacements caused by torsional moments induced by ea and those resulted from nonlinear response history analysis, the need for a detailed 3D building model emerged. The objectives of this paper are: i) to quantify the effect of accidental torsion considered in seismic design, by assessing the collapse safety of steel braced frame buildings, using detailed 3D building models, ii) to assess the effect of bidirectional excitation on the nonlinear seismic response of regular and torsionally sensitive buildings, and iii) to evaluate the strength and deflection criteria of torsionally sensitive steel buildings. The case study is a 4-storey concentrically braced frame (CBF) office building with a square floor plan and various CBFs locations leading to various Bx ratios. The distribution of inelastic demand is analysed in terms of interstorey drift, residual drift and floor acceleration, measured at the extreme points of building floor and CM. Considering incremental dynamic analysis, the collapse safety criterion is verified and discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · 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