Performance Evaluation of Seismic Force–Resisting Systems for Low‐Rise Steel Buildings in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Steel is one of the most popular seismic force–resisting systems (SFRS) in use worldwide. In Canada, several SFRS have been prequalified for use in the national and provincial building codes. The design of each SFRS has been covered comprehensively in literature. However, no guidance has been provided in selecting the optimum system for a project. In this paper, a prototype building located in Vancouver, Canada, was designed nine times to utilize each of the prequalified SFRS. Detailed seismic hazard and finite element models were developed for each system. The performance in terms of initial construction and life‐cycle cost was used to rank each SFRS. The result of this analysis shows that the eccentrically braced configuration has the lowest material usage and life cycle maintenance cost; it is therefore the most economic system in this study. The presented methodology is transparent and can be easily adopted by engineers to select the most economic seismic system for projects with different configurations and geometries than those given in this research. Furthermore, this system introduces a metric with which to estimate the life‐cycle costs of a structure taking into account seismic damage over the service life.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".