Cost‐Benefit Analysis of Buildings Retrofitted Using GIB Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, the gapped‐inclined brace system (GIB) has been developed as an effective retrofitting solution for soft‐story buildings. This paper presents a cost‐benefit study of a building retrofitted using the GIB system. A six‐story, reinforced concrete (RC) frame with an open story at the ground level and masonry infills on all other floors is studied. To investigate the effectiveness of alternate retrofit configurations, different scenarios of GIB systems are numerically analyzed, expected repair costs for various levels of seismic intensity are computed, and cost benefit values are compared to each other and to those obtained when the building is strengthened and stiffened at the ground floor using conventional methods. Results show that GIB retrofit solutions are likely to represent significant cost benefits compared to traditional retrofit solutions. The results also indicate that GIBs do not need to be positioned at all column locations of the soft story, which could be beneficial in reducing the overall retrofit cost and improving architectural functionality of the retrofitted structure.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".