MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341320142 · doi:10.14288/1.0063092

A methodology for assessing the seismic risk of buildings

2008· article· en· W2341320142 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katherine Marie Thibert

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeismic riskGeologyComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Forensic engineeringSeismologyEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many infrastructure networks rely on each other to deliver utilities and services to the community. In the event of a disaster, these networks can sustain significant damage. It is therefore important to identify interdependencies among networks to mitigate the disaster consequences. In 2003, Public Safety Canada (PSC) and NSERC initiated the Joint Infrastructure Interdependencies Research Program (JIIRP) for this purpose. The research was carried out at six Universities across Canada including the University of British Columbia (UBC). The aim of JIIRP at UBC was to study infrastructure interdependencies during disasters in order to aid in decision making. This involved the development disaster simulation methodology and tool, and the implementation of a case study. UBC's Point Grey campus was used as case study. The campus is located in southwestern British Columbia, a known seismic zone, therefore earthquake disaster scenario was chosen. Reasonable estimations of the expected seismic damage and losses are required in order to simulate a realistic disaster scenario. For this reason, in this thesis, seismic risk assessment was carried out for the buildings at UBC. This involved the development of a building database, the assessment of the expected level of damage to the structural and nonstructural building components, and the estimation of monetary, human and functionality losses. Buildings in the database were classified into prototypes and the damage was estimated for several levels ofintensity using damage probability matrices. As expected, the most vulnerable buildings on campus were those containing unreinforced masonry. These buildings make up 7% of the buildings on campus. The least vulnerable buildings were multi-family residential woodbuildings which account for 27% of the buildings on campus. Losses were estimated following the damage assessments. Casualties were estimated for three times of day. 2PM was determined to be the critical time of day as the campus population is the greatest at this time. Monetary loss and functionality trends were examined with respect to earthquake intensity and it was shown that for moderate intensity earthquakes, the losses depend primarily on nonstructural damage, while structural damage plays the most important role for higher intensities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207