ArticleScientific reports2025
Nonlinear response analysis of plan and vertical asymmetric reinforced concrete buildings under directional seismic loadings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Displacement-based seismic fragility assessment of a high-rise reinforced concrete building.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Application of Taguchi Grey-Based ANFIS model for prediction of process parameters in fused deposition modelling of PETG.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Nonlinear response analysis of plan and vertical asymmetric reinforced concrete buildings under directional seismic loadings.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A nonlinear dynamic analysis is conducted on plan and vertically asymmetric reinforced concrete buildings subjected to directional seismic forces. The mathematical models are developed for building models. The plan asymmetry in the building is introduced by imposing uniaxial eccentricities of 6 m, 12 m, and 18 m. The vertical mass and stiffness asymmetry at different building levels is introduced by varying the mass or stiffness in the vertical direction. The peak displacement and the inter-storey drift ratio are evaluated. The vulnerability of asymmetric buildings to earthquake forces increases up to a specific eccentricity. Compared to stiffness and mass asymmetric buildings, stiffness asymmetry at the bottom floor and mass asymmetry at the top floor have shown a larger response in all the earthquakes and angles of study. The peak responses for plan and vertically symmetric buildings are observed under unidirectional earthquake forces. The peak displacement is 80 mm in the Y direction for the plan asymmetric structures. The vertical stiffness of asymmetric structures showed a peak response of 300 mm in the Y direction. The building with mass asymmetry at the top showed 199.18 mm in the Y direction. The authors recommend a detailed analysis of the design and analysis of asymmetric structures, especially to predict material failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.