MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062632837 · doi:10.1139/l06-026

Inelastic analysis of a reinforced concrete shear wall building according to the National Building Code of Canada 2005

2006· article· en· W2062632837 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
M Panneton, Pierre Léger, Robert Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsStructural engineeringStiffnessShear (geology)Shear wallSeismic analysisEngineeringBuilding codeGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An eight-storey reinforced concrete shear wall building located in Montréal and designed according to the 1995 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) and the Canadian Standards Association standard CSA-A23.3-94 is studied to evaluate the impact of new requirements for inclusion in new editions of the NBCC and CSA-A23.3. Static and modal analyses were conducted according to the 2005 NBCC (draft 2003) and CSA-A23.3-04 (draft 4) procedures, and three-dimensional dynamic inelastic time history analysis was performed using three earthquake records. The building is braced by four flat shear walls and three cores. Various estimates of the fundamental period of vibration based on empirical expressions presented in the literature or structural models with different stiffness assumptions were examined. The analysis also permitted the study of the displacement and force demand on the lateral load resisting system. It was found that the base shear from the 2005 NBCC is 29% higher than the 1995 NBCC value when code empirical formulae are used for the fundamental period of vibration.Key words: building, shear wall, inelastic seismic response, NBCC, CSA-A23.3 design of concrete structures.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207