MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210770399 · doi:10.14288/1.0402567

An analytical framework to estimate downtime and model the recovery of buildings after an earthquake

2021· article· en· W3210770399 on OpenAlexaff
Taikhum Hussein Vahanvaty

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntimeComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceForensic engineeringReliability engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While modern seismic design codes intend to ensure life-safety in extreme earthquakes, policy-makers are moving towards performance objectives stated in terms of acceptable recovery times. This thesis describes a framework to estimate downtime and model the post-earthquake recovery of buildings. Downtime estimates include the time for mobilizing resources after an earthquake and conduct necessary repairs. The proposed framework advances the well-established FEMA P-58 and REDi methodologies by modeling temporal building recovery trajectories to target recovery states such as stability, shelter-in-place, reoccupancy, and functional recovery, as well as by providing probabilistic seismic performance measures that are useful for decision-making. The proposed framework is implemented to evaluate a range of modern 8- to 24-story residential reinforced concrete shear wall buildings located in Seattle, WA. The assessment results indicate that under a functional-level earthquake (roughly equivalent to ground shaking with a return period of 475-years), the average probability across all building heights of not achieving a target shelter-in-place recovery state immediately after the earthquake is 16%, and the probability of downtime to functional recovery exceeding four months is 91.5%. These probabilities exceed the 10% threshold suggested for similar performance measures in the 2015 NEHRP guidelines and FEMA P-2090, respectively. Furthermore, the framework is used to quantify the impact of design strategies on the building’s downtime performance. The results illustrate that certain structural design interventions are effective in ensuring a small probability (<10%) of not achieving the shelter-in-place recovery state immediately after the earthquake but are ineffective in achieving an aggressive four-month target downtime to functional recovery, for which, non-structural enhancements and mitigation measures to impeding factor delays would need to be considered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207