Bibliographic record
Abstract
During recent seismic events, non-ductile failure modes of many existing structures occurred. Retrofit of these structures before the earthquake provides a feasible cost-effective approach to reduce the hazard to occupants' safety and owners' investment. The response of two reinforced concrete frames was examined under seismic excitation. The 9-storey and 18-storey frames are part of the lateral load resisting system in two office buildings that were designed according to the 1960s code provisions. The frames were analyzed assuming flexible joint response by considering the joint shear deformation or assuming traditional rigid joints. Two rehabilitation techniques were proposed to improve the dynamic response of these frames. Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) jackets were used as a local rehabilitation technique to enhance the joint shear strength and ductility. As another option, X-steel braces were installed in the middle bay of the frame along its height as an alternate lateral load resisting system. For each frame, failure sequence and interstorey drift were examined. It was found that FRP wrapping eliminated the brittle failure modes without significant change in the structural response. However, steel bracing significantly contributed to the structural stiffness and reduced the maximum interstorey drift of the frames.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".