Performance assessment of tall concrete core‐wall building designed using two alternative approaches
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 Concrete core‐wall structural systems are prevalent for high‐rise residential buildings in the West Coast of the United States. To assess the seismic performance characteristics of this system, a 42‐story core‐wall residential building was designed for a site in Los Angeles, CA. The building was designed using two different design approaches. The first design followed prescriptive requirements of US building codes, except height limits were disregarded. The second design followed a performance‐based procedure. Analytical models of each design were subjected to a series of earthquake ground motions representative of very frequent to very rare shaking intensities. Effectiveness of the various design methods is assessed considering structural performance indices, initial costs, and repair costs associated with anticipated earthquake ground shaking. The results illustrate the seismic performance potential of this structural system and demonstrate the application of a practical seismic performance assessment approach for buildings. Copyright © 2012 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 | 0.001 |
| 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