Seismic performance of reinforced concrete core wall buildings with and without moment resisting frames
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.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it