MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302875931

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF OPERATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS (OFCS): FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND SHAKE TABLE TESTING

2008· article· en· W2302875931 on OpenAlexaff
Hugón Juárez García, Carlos E. Ventura

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarthquake shaking tableAccelerationEngineeringShakeDisplacement (psychology)Computer scienceReliability engineeringStructural engineeringMechanical engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Operational and Functional Components (OFC) are those elements in a building that are required for its normal function and operation. In recent earthquakes it has become clear that, in addition to the safety related aspects of the seismic performance of OFCs, the economic impact of the poor or marginal performance of them can be very severe. In this paper, a seismic risk assessment study conducted as part of a major project of the University of British Columbia called Joint Infrastructure Interdependencies Research Project (JIIRP) includes the evaluation of the performance of OFCs; a summary of the Seismic Risk Assessment considered for these components is presented first. The response spectra from the earthquake scenarios are used to compute floor response spectra (acceleration, velocity and displacement) in order to gain a better understanding of the demands experienced by OFCs. Secondly, a series of vibration tests were conducted on machinery and pipelines of actual buildings that are part of lifeline systems; the testing program included the evaluation of the dynamic properties of them using operational and forced vibration conditions. Then, a summary of a series of shake table tests of different types of OFCs conducted in recent years at the University of British Columbia is presented and the results are discussed. The results from field observations and laboratory tests are compared, and the similarities and differences between responses are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207