Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a simplified method of evaluating the seismic performance of buildings. The proposed method is based on the transformation of a multiple degree of freedom (MDOF) system to an equivalent single degree of freedom (SDOF) system using a simple and intuitive process. The proposed method is intended for evaluating the seismic pertormance of the buildings at the intermediate stages in design, while a rigorous method would be applied to the final design. The performance of the method is evaluated using a series of buildings which are assumed to be located in Victoria in western Canada, and designed based on the upcoming version of the National Building Code of Canada which is due to bc published in 2005. To resist lateral loads, some of these buildings contain reinforced concrete moment resisting frames,while others contain reinforced concrete shear walls. Each building model has been subjected to a set of site-specific seismic spectrum compatible ground motion records, and the response has been determined using the proposed method and the general method for MDOF systems. The results from the study indicate that the proposed method can serve as a useful tool for evaluation of seismic performance of buildings, and carrying out performance based design.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".