Overview of seismic provisions of the proposed 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proposed 2005 edition of the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) will contain very significant changes in the provisions for seismic loading and design. A brief history of the NBCC seismic provisions is presented followed by a discussion of the reasons for introducing such major changes in the next edition of the code. The major changes to the seismic provisions are summarized; this includes updated hazard in spectral format, change in return period (probability of exceedance), period-dependent site factors, delineation of effects of overstrength and ductility, modified period calculation formulae, explicit recognition of higher mode effects, rational treatment of irregularities, triggers for special provisions incorporated directly in classification of structural systems, and placing dynamic analysis as the normal "default" method of analysis for use in seismic design. The impact of these changes on the seismic level of protection is considered by comparing the 2005 NBCC and 1995 NBCC base shear coefficients for a selection of common structural systems located on a range of site conditions in three urban areas having low to high levels of seismic hazard, i.e., Toronto, Montréal, and Vancouver.Key words: seismic, design, loading, code, hazard, buildings, structures, foundations, period, analysis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".