MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391095502 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2023-0111

Implications of the 2020 National Building Code of Canada updates on the design demands for reinforced concrete shear wall buildings

2024· article· en· W4391095502 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Saeed Dehghani, Lisa Tobber

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuilding codeSeismic analysisResponse spectrumShear wallModalStructural engineeringSeismic hazardReinforced concreteInterpolation (computer graphics)Shear (geology)StiffnessAccelerationComputer scienceGeologyCivil engineeringEngineeringFrame (networking)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The seismic demands of the Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls (RCSWs) system are determined based on Canada’s National Building Code (NBC). NBC 2020 features the revised Canadian Seismic Hazard Model and presents the possibility of enhancing demand’s accuracy by determining design spectra based on the specific average shear wave velocity, instead of specified site classes. This paper investigates the changes in design demands for RCSWs compared to the previous edition. To do so, fifty-five RCSW prototypes were modelled using distributed mass and stiffness procedure, and their dynamic response was assessed through Modal Response Spectrum Analysis at five locations across Canada. The results highlight significant changes in deformation and force demands, where the majority of cases experienced an increase in 2020 compared to 2015 when demands were determined based on specified site classes. This study also evaluates the log-log interpolation method recommended by NBC 2020 for the design spectral acceleration.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207