Seismic performance of reinforced concrete core wall buildings with and without moment resisting frames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This study aims to compare the seismic performance of two 42‐story reinforced concrete buildings located in Los Angeles, California: a coupled core wall building and a similar core wall building with perimeter moment resisting frames (i.e. dual system). The buildings were designed using two different approaches. The first approach followed the traditional code prescriptive design approach as outlined in the International Building Code (2006), whereas the other approach followed a performance‐based design approach outlined in the seismic design guideline published by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Detailed finite element models were developed for both systems with the different design approaches. The models were used to evaluate the seismic performance of the prototype model at five different earthquake shaking intensities. Detailed comparisons of the design approaches, seismic responses, and initial and annualized repair costs of these buildings are presented. Analysis results show that both structural systems generally achieved excellent performance, whereas the dual system performed slightly better (smaller inter‐story drifts and lower core wall stresses). Although repair costs were lower in the dual system building (which is attributed to lesser degree of damage), total costs were higher than the core wall building due to the higher initial costs. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".