Criterion for Applying Two-Step Analysis Procedure to Seismic Design of Wood-Frame Buildings on Concrete Podium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neither the 2015 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) nor the 2014 Canadian wood design standard, Engineering design in wood, explicitly provides seismic design guidelines for wood-frame buildings on a concrete podium. The NBCC commentary and ASCE standard, Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures, provide different criteria for designing podium buildings using a two-step analysis procedure. Of specific interest in this paper is which criterion is more suitable for wood-frame podium buildings. Wood-frame podium buildings with different stiffness ratios, mass ratios, and period ratios were designed with two-step analysis procedure in accordance with the NBCC and Canadian wood design standard. Nonlinear time history dynamic analysis was conducted using the selected earthquake ground motions based on the guidelines proposed for NBCC. Pure wood-frame buildings were also analyzed as benchmark cases for evaluating the seismic performance of midrise podium buildings designed with a two-step analysis procedure. The analysis results show that neither the criterion in the NBCC commentary nor that in the ASCE standard can guarantee that podium buildings designed using the two-step analysis procedure meet the performance-based seismic design criterion. An empirical criterion based on the normalized stiffness ratio and normalized mass ratio was developed. It is concluded that when the normalized stiffness ratio is equal to or greater than 10 times the normalized mass ratio, the buildings designed with the two-step analysis procedure are able to meet the performance-based seismic design criterion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".