Seismic response and life‐cycle cost of reinforced concrete special structural wall buildings in Dubai, UAE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this paper is to quantify the effect of Dubai's diverse seismicity estimates on the seismic response of reinforced concrete shear wall buildings. In this regard, three 12‐story office buildings are designed and detailed in accordance with common practices and building codes utilized in Dubai. The buildings are designed for three possible seismic hazard estimates of Dubai (i.e., high, moderate, and low) with specially detailed shear walls. The seismic response is evaluated based on FEMA P695 methodology and fragility analysis. The methodology is based on nonlinear pseudo‐static pushover and incremental dynamic analyses (IDA). Pushover analysis is performed and its results are compared against design levels. IDA is performed using the set of 22 far‐field ground motion records recommended by FEMA P695. The results of this research confirm that designing for the conservative seismicity estimate significantly enhances the seismic response of the buildings. The building designed for the highest seismicity showed a favorable structural response, while the moderate seismicity design had a reasonable response. For the lowest seismicity design, results showed a poor seismic performance. Furthermore, the resulting enhancements in the seismic response reduce potential earthquake damages and collapse probabilities. Therefore, the marginal increase in initial investment is outweighed by the reduction in the buildings’ life‐cycle (repair and downtime) cost.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".