Performance of buildings during the 2001 Bhuj earthquake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of buildings during the January 26, 2001, earthquake in the Kachchh region of the province of Gujarat in India is discussed. A majority of the buildings in the earthquake region were either of load-bearing masonry or reinforced concrete framed structure. Most of the masonry buildings were built with random or coursed stone walls without any reinforcement and heavy clay tile roofing supported on wooden logs. A large number of such buildings collapsed leading to widespread destruction and loss of life. Many reinforced concrete frame buildings had infill masonry walls except in the first storey, which was reserved for parking. As would be expected, the open first storey suffered severe damage or collapsed. Observations of failures confirmed the vulnerability of some structural details that are known to lead to distress. However, an important observation to come out of the earthquake was that masonry infills, even when not tied to the surrounding frame, could save the building from collapse, provided such infills are uniformly distributed throughout the height so that abrupt changes in stiffness and strength did not occur.Key words: Bhuj earthquake, 2001; seismology of Kachchh; earthquake damage survey; performance of buildings; load bearing masonry; reinforced concrete frames; structural details vulnerable to earthquakes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".