Seismic behavior and retrofitting of reinforced concrete moment resistant frames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many multistory reinforced concrete frame structures built prior to 1970's located in seismic zones have been designed only for gravity loads without any considerations for lateral loads. These structures are referred to as Gravity Load Designed (GLD) frames. The lack of seismic considerations in GLD structures results in non-ductile behavior that may cause the lateral load resistance of these buildings to be insufficient for even moderate earthquakes. Based on the current Canadian practice as prescribed by CAN3-A23.3 1994, reinforced concrete structures located in seismic zones should be designed as ductile or nominally ductile frames. In this study, a typical 5-story frame building is designed as (a) ductile, (b) nominally ductile and (c) GLD frame. Analytical investigation is performed to evaluate and to compare the performance of each frame. The study includes "pushover" analysis and non-linear time-history analysis. The results in terms of story displacement, ductility, shear, drift, sequence of cracking and yielding and the damage potential are presented. As a result of the poor performance of the GLD frame, it is retrofitted with fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP). Different retrofitting schemes using FRP are used to compare the behavior in terms of ductility. In this study, the behavior of the retrofitted frame is compared with the that of the GLD frame. Based on the results of this study, a guideline for improving the seismic performance of reinforced concrete frame structures is provided.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".