Toward functional recovery performance in the seismic design of modern tall buildings
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
Current building code requirements for seismic design are primarily intended to minimize life‐safety risks due to structural damage under extreme earthquakes. While tall buildings designed under current standards are expected to achieve the life‐safety goal, this study estimates that they may require up to 7.5 months of repair to return to functionality after a design‐level earthquake (roughly equivalent to ground motion shaking with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years), and over 1 year after a risk‐targeted maximum considered earthquake (roughly equivalent to ground motion shaking with a 2%–4% chance of exceedance in 50 years). These long downtimes, which correspond to median predictions, far exceed recovery goals for major employers and other recovery‐critical uses and can have disproportionately harmful effects on businesses and residents. To address such extensive downtime risks, we evaluate the impact of recovery‐based design guidelines for reducing recovery times through (1) more stringent drift limits under expected ground motions and (2) measures to mitigate externalities that impede recovery. The results suggest that by combining these strategies, expected recovery times following a design‐level earthquake can be reduced to roughly 1 month, and to 2 months following a risk‐targeted maximum considered earthquake. These findings are illustrated for an archetype 42‐story reinforced concrete shear wall residential building and a 40‐story steel buckling‐restrained braced frame office building in San Francisco, CA.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it