Seismic performance of single-storey steel concentrically braced frame structures constructed in the 1960s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A general overview of the seismic performance of representative single-storey concentrically braced frame (CBF) buildings designed using the 1965 National Building Code of Canada and the 1965 S16 Canadian Standards Association Steel Structures for Buildings Standard was obtained through the use of nonlinear time history dynamic analyses and the testing of brace elements obtained from buildings constructed in the 1960s. The study comprised 16 representative buildings subjected to 20 site selected ground motions for three locations; Halifax (Nova Scotia) low seismicity, Montreal (Quebec) moderate seismicity, and Abbotsford (British Columbia) high seismicity. Incremental dynamic analyses were performed using various failure criteria as obtained from the test data; brace net-section fracture, bolt shear, block shear, bolt bearing and brace yielding. Fragility curves were created and the probability of failure was defined. The performance of the structures designed for Abbotsford was unsatisfactory for all of the brace connection failure mechanisms. In contrast, because of the lower current seismic hazard in Montreal, the 16 archetypical buildings demonstrated better performance. In Halifax the buildings performed well, based on the identified failure criteria. It was necessary to strengthen the roof diaphragms for all buildings to carry 2010 NBCC design level seismic forces.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".