A Proposal of Design Spectrum Based on Uniform Hazard Spectral Format Using 4th Generation Seismic Hazard Maps of Canada for CHBDC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two recent developments have come into the forefront with reference to updating the seismic design provisions for codes: (i) publication of new seismic hazard maps for Canada by the Geological Survey of Canada, and (ii) emergence of the concept of new spectral format outdating the conventional standardized spectral format. The 4th generation seismic hazard maps are based on enriched seismic data, enhanced knowledge of regional seismicity and improved seismic hazard modeling techniques. Therefore, the new maps are more accurate and need to incorporate into the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) for its next edition similar to its building counterpart (NBCC 2005). In fact the code writers expressed such intentions with comments in the commentary of CHBCD 2006 as “New methods for defining ground motion (e.g., uniform hazard spectra) are being investigated for possible inclusion in future codes.” During the process of updating codes, NBCC 2005 and AASHTO 2009 lowered the probability level from 10% to 2% and 10% to 5%, respectively. This study has brought three sets of hazard maps (corresponding to 2%, 5% and 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years) developed by the GSC under investigation. To have a sound statistical inference, 389 Canadian cities are selected. The statistical analyses reveal that the design spectra under consideration need modification. A scheme of modification is developed to make the modified spectra work. Finally, validity of modified AASHTO spectrum is established and its adoption in the future CHBDC is recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".