Ductility of concrete walls: the Canadian seismic design provisions 1984 to 2004
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) references Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standard A23.3 for the design of concrete structures. The seismic design provisions in the 2004 edition of CSA A23.3, which ensure concrete walls without confinement reinforcement have adequate flexural displacement capacity (ductility), have been completely revised from the provisions in the 1994 edition of CSA A23.3 standard, which are similar to the provisions in the 1984 edition. The new provisions require an estimate of the displacement demand of the seismic force resisting system due to the design earthquake. For ductile walls that are part of a system with good displacement control, the new provisions are less restrictive than the old provisions, while for moderately (nominally) ductile walls, the new provisions are considerably more restrictive than the old provisions. A comprehensive review of the 1984 and 1994 provisions and the background to the 2004 provisions are presented, and it is explained why the seismic design provisions required significant changes.Key words: building codes, concrete walls, displacement-based design, ductility, seismic design.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".