21.04: Vibration characteristics of an existing high‐rise building in Montreal and the effects of retrofit
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
ABSTRACT The study described in this paper refers to seismic assessment and retrofit of an existing 10‐storey reinforced concrete office building designed and built at the beginning of the 20 century. When this building with a height of 38.95 m was completed it was the highest in downtown Montreal. According to FEMA 547 classification, the typology of this building structure is associated to model building type “C3”. Consequently, this type of non‐ductile frame building with an insignificant amount of masonry walls is relatively weak and unable to carry the seismic forces when subjected to ground motions from a potential earthquake magnitude. The main deficiencies of this structural system are: poor lateral confinement and shear resistance of columns, the location of lap splices and the number of reinforcing bars often inadequate, the lack of confinement and shear reinforcement in joints, poor anchorage of longitudinal reinforcement of beams into joints and shear resistance of beams. Due to lack of seismic detailing, the common retrofit measure recommended in ASCE/SEI 41–13 for this building is to add new lateral force‐resisting systems designed according to current code and standard provisions. Hence, in this case, the most cost‐effective retrofit solution is to add a steel structure designed to withstand seismic forces while responding to serviceability criteria required to preserve the non‐reinforced masonry facades facing the main streets and the facades ornaments.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it