Improving the Seismic Resilience of Existing Braced-Frame Office Buildings
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
The concept of seismic resilience is defined as the capability of a system to maintain a level of functionality or performance in the aftermath of an earthquake event. In the research reported in this paper, a methodology for the seismic resilience assessment of existing braced-frame office buildings was developed. In this context, damage levels were defined as function of performance levels associated to earthquake intensity. Furthermore, fragility curves were derived from incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) curves obtained from time–history analyses using computer software and both aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties were considered. To illustrate the previously mentioned concept, a walkthrough of the methodology is presented in a case study comprising of existing 3-story and 6-story concentrically braced-frame (CBF) office buildings located in eastern Canada (Montreal and Quebec City) and western Canada (Vancouver). These buildings were designed in agreement with Canadian national code requirements. The proposed retrofit strategy is according to a United States standard and the retrofitted office buildings should meet the so-called basic safety rehabilitation objective class. In addition, all studied retrofitted buildings show enhanced earthquake resilience.
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