Analytical Modeling of Moderately Ductile RC Frame Structures for Seismic Performance Evaluation Using PERFORM‐3D
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance‐based vulnerability assessment of buildings requires dynamic inelastic analysis, which cannot be conducted without reliable analytical models. An important aspect of analytical building models involves hysteretic modeling of force‐deformation relationships. PERFORM‐3D software was used to generate fragility curves for moderately ductile buildings in Eastern Canada using hysteretic models with different features reflecting the recommendations of different North American standards. Two‐story and five‐story reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings were considered for this purpose. The parameters that define rotational limits, as specified in ASCE 41‐13 and ACI 369R‐11 as well as the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC), were assessed. The results indicate that the variations in modeling parameters did not result in significant differences in fragility response at immediate occupancy and life safety performance levels, whereas the fragilities at the collapse performance level were affected. The probability of exceeding collapse prevention in buildings modeled as per NBCC was higher than those modeled using the ASCE 41‐13 and ACI 369R‐11 requirements.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".