Methodology for rapid assessment of seismic damage to buildings in Canadian settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A framework for rapid risk assessment is proposed considering local inventory of the building stock, definition of the seismic hazard and evaluation of the respective structural vulnerabilities. Structural vulnerability represents the central component of the framework and is based on the concept of fragility functions which combine the intensity of the seismic motion to the expected damage for a given structural type. This report documents the development of a rapid procedure for the seismic risk assessment of buildings. The procedure was first developed using the structural characteristics of the existing buildings in Old Quebec City with an emphasis to historic stone masonry buildings. Still it can be applied to existing or planned buildings of any structural type incorporating respective: (1) capacity curves which characterize the nonlinear behaviour of a building (exposure); (2) displacement fragility curves which represent the probability of exceedance of specified damage state under various levels of structural response (vulnerability); and (3) site specific response spectra used to estimate the structural demand for a series of earthquake magnitude-distance combinations (hazard). A modified approach to the capacity spectrum method is proposed for evaluation of the expected damage as opposed to the usual iterative procedure for the displacement response, e.g., the one implemented in the well known U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency - FEMA's Hazus software. The developed methodology revealed to be a powerful tool for rapid assessment of seismic risk of a single building type or a regional risk assessment as it significantly reduces the computation time. It was validated through seismic damage assessment of 1220 buildings in Old Quebec City for a scenario event of M6.2 and distance 15km. The results were compared to those obtained by applying the Hazus software for the same input parameters (capacity curves and displacement based fragility functions) and showed negligible differences.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".