Earthquake‐induced loss assessment of steel frame buildings with special moment frames designed in highly seismic regions
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 This paper discusses an analytical study that quantifies the expected earthquake‐induced losses in typical office steel frame buildings designed with perimeter special moment frames in highly seismic regions. It is shown that for seismic events associated with low probabilities of occurrence, losses due to demolition and collapse may be significantly overestimated when the expected loss computations are based on analytical models that ignore the composite beam effects and the interior gravity framing system of a steel frame building. For frequently occurring seismic events building losses are dominated by non‐structural content repairs. In this case, the choice of the analytical model representation of the steel frame building becomes less important. Losses due to demolition and collapse in steel frame buildings with special moment frames designed with strong‐column/weak‐beam ratio larger than 2.0 are reduced by a factor of two compared with those in the same frames designed with a strong‐column/weak‐beam ratio larger than 1.0 as recommended in ANSI/AISC‐341‐10. The expected annual losses ( EAL s) of steel frame buildings with SMFs vary from 0.38% to 0.74% over the building life expectancy. The EAL s are dominated by repairs of acceleration‐sensitive non‐structural content followed by repairs of drift‐sensitive non‐structural components. It is found that the effect of strong‐column/weak‐beam ratio on EAL s is negligible. This is not the case when the present value of life‐cycle costs is selected as a loss‐metric. It is advisable to employ a combination of loss‐metrics to assess the earthquake‐induced losses in steel frame buildings with special moment frames depending on the seismic performance level of interest. Copyright © 2017 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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