Robustness Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Frames under Progressive Collapse Hazards: Novel Risk-Based Framework
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robustness assessment is an important component for performance-based progressive collapse design. However, existing methods either do not consider the cascading failure feature of progress collapse, or fail to recognize the randomness in material, geometrical and loading parameters. This paper presents a novel robustness assessment methodology for progressive collapse design of reinforced concrete frames. The proposed methodology includes several novelties: First, it uses a new risk-based robustness index recently developed by the authors. The index quantifies the whole spectrum of risk caused by initiating hazardous events. Second, it includes a unique directional simulation technique, making probabilistic nonlinear pushdown analysis a computationally affordable task. Finally, the assessment can assist in determining if an enhancement design is warranted for such a low-probability-high-consequence event. The study examined four different frame designs to evaluate the effectiveness of seismic and progressive collapse design provisions. The Alternate Path Method (APM) was shown to improve structural robustness significantly, although achieved with considerable additional cost. Ductility designed for seismic loading was also shown to be beneficial for structural robustness against progressive collapse.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it