Seismic Resilience of Concrete Moment Frames with Fibrous Rubberized Beam-Column Joints
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
Ensuring resilience through rapid buildings recovery in seismic zones has been placed at the forefront of recent studies. However, studies that compare the relative resilience of buildings constructed with different materials are lacking. This paper focuses on a comparative resilience analysis of concrete moment frames where beam-column connections are made with varying types of concrete mixtures. The connections are made with normal strength concrete (NSC), rubberized concrete (RbC), steel fiber rubberized concrete (STFRC), synthetic fiber rubberized concrete (SYFRC), and high strength concrete (HSC). Nonlinear static pushover and incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) are utilized to understand system response and the level of damage sustained following an earthquake. Subsequently, seismic fragility functions are constructed for the five considered frame types. The frames are subjected to different seismic scenarios, and the corresponding losses, recovery time, and resilience are quantified. A comparison between the five frame types is carried out to examine the optimal concrete mixture to be used to reduce damage probabilities, total direct losses, and recovery time and subsequently enhance resilience. The results show that rubberized concrete strengthened with steel and synthetic fibers can reduce economic losses by up to 19% and increase building resilience by up to 37% compared with the frames constructed with normal strength concrete.
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