Methodology for practical seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings with historical value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Historical constructions are part of the world heritage, and their survival is an important priority. Comprising mostly unreinforced, load‐bearing masonry, heritage buildings may date anywhere from antiquity to the 19th and early 20th century. Being exposed to the elements over the years, they are in various states of disrepair and material degradation. Based on postearthquake reconnaissance reports, these structures occasionally behave rather poorly, even in moderate seismic events, undergoing catastrophic damage and collapse, whereas retrofitting is governed by international conventions regarding noninvasiveness and reversibility of the intervention. The complexity of their structural systems (continuous structural components, lack of diaphragm action, material brittleness, and variability) challenges the established methods of condition assessment of preretrofitted and postretrofitted heritage constructions. The most advanced state of the art in materials and analysis tools is required, far more complex than with conventional buildings. Thus, an assessment procedure specifically geared to this class of structures is urgently needed, in order to assist engineers in this endeavor. The objective of this paper is the development of a performance‐based assessment framework that is palatable to practitioners and quite accurate in seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings with no diaphragm action. The underlying theoretical background of the method is illustrated with reference to first principles: global demand is obtained from the design earthquake scenario for the region, using empirical estimates for the prevailing translational period of the system; deformation demands are localized using an approximation to the translational 3‐D shape of lateral response, estimated using a uniform gravitational field in the direction of action of the earthquake; acceptance criteria are specified in terms of relative drift ratios, referring to the in‐plane and the out‐of‐plane action of the masonry piers. The quantitative accuracy of the introduced procedure is evaluated through comparison with detailed time‐history dynamic analysis results, using a real life example case study. Qualitative relevance of the results is evaluated through comparison of the location and extent of anticipated damage estimated from the proposed assessment procedure, with reported records of the building damages that occurred during a significant past earthquake event.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".