Seismic loss estimation of non‐ductile reinforced concrete 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
SUMMARY Non‐ductile reinforced concrete buildings represent a prevalent construction type found in many parts of the world. Due to the seismic vulnerability of such buildings, in areas of high seismic activity non‐ductile reinforced concrete buildings pose a significant threat to the safety of the occupants and damage to such structures can result in large financial losses. This paper introduces advanced analytical models that can be used to simulate the nonlinear dynamic response of these structural systems, including collapse. The state‐of‐the‐art loss simulation procedure developed for new buildings is extended to estimate the expected losses of existing non‐ductile concrete buildings considering their vulnerability to collapse. Three criteria for collapse, namely first component failure, side‐sway collapse, and gravity‐load collapse, are considered in determining the probability of collapse and the assessment of financial losses. A detailed example is presented using a seven‐story non‐ductile reinforced concrete frame building located in the Los Angeles, California. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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