Seismic fragility analysis of pre-1975 conventional concrete frame buildings in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fragility analysis was conducted for reinforced concrete frame buildings in Canada designed based on the 1965 National Building Code of Canada as representative of pre-1975 era of seismic design practice. Two-, five-, and ten-storey buildings were designed for Vancouver and Ottawa, representing buildings in high and medium seismic regions. They were modelled for inelastic response time history analysis, with respective inelastic hysteretic models for flexure and shear. Software PERFORM-3D was used to conduct incremental dynamic analysis under incrementally increasing earthquake intensity. Probabilistic analysis of the results of incremental dynamic analysis led to the development of fragility functions, which can be used as seismic vulnerability assessment tools. The results are compared with those generated for frame buildings designed on the basis of the 2010 NBCC. The comparison indicates that the probabilities of exceeding performance levels are significantly higher for older buildings relative to recently built fully ductile and moderately ductile buildings, respectively.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".