SEISMIC CODE PROVISIONS FOR POST-DISASTER BUILDINGS IN CANADA, USA, AND NEW ZEALAND: A COMPARISON
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Seismic code provisions for post-disaster buildings vary across the world. There are similarities among these codes such as having a higher importance factor and ductility level in addition to limiting drift demand. On the other hand, limitations on building systems and irregularities that are applicable to post-disaster buildings, hazard levels, structural analysis methods, and ductility requirements are different in the corresponding building codes. The 2020 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) has introduced new provisions and performance requirements for post-disaster buildings (provision 4.1.8.23.). This new provision aims to improve the serviceability of such buildings when subjected to lower intensity ground motions that occur more frequently than the design ground motions in moderate-to-high seismic regions. The post-disaster buildings are designed to remain elastic with RdRo = 1.3 along with the maximum story drift being limited to less than 0.5% when subjected to a seismic hazard corresponding to 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years. This provision results in a significant change in the design and proportioning of the lateral system and foundation of post-disaster buildings in high seismic regions in Canada. This paper presents a comparative study between seismic design of a post-disaster building located in Greater Victoria Canada using 2020 NBCC, seismic design of a post-disaster building located in Seattle USA using the newly updated ASCE/SEI 7-22 and the seismic design of a post-disaster building located in Christchurch New Zealand using the New Zealand standards for structural design (NZS 1170.5:2004 – incorporating Amendment No. 1 published Sept. 2016). First, a brief description of the evolution and backgrounds of each regulation is given. A discussion of the three design procedures is then presented, all three based on a prescriptive approach. Finally, seismic design of a sample, ten–story building with two levels of below-grade parking located in Greater Victoria, Seattle and Christchurch are compared. The performance of the prototype building is then further examined by performing nonlinear response history analysis following the requirements of PEER TBI II and explicitly checking the performance of the building with respect to target reliability thresholds. The results of the design comparison present a significant difference between the three design practices.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle