MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391308869 · doi:10.3390/buildings14020368

Seismic Design of a Typical Mid-Rise Residential Building in Serbia Using Confined Masonry and Reinforced Concrete Frame Systems

2024· article· en· W4391308869 on OpenAlexaff
Radovan Cvetković, Predrag Blagojević, Svetlana Brzev

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasonryStructural engineeringFrame (networking)Unreinforced masonry buildingReinforced concreteSeismic analysisEngineeringGeologyGeotechnical engineeringCivil engineeringArchitectural engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Masonry has been widely used for the construction of residential buildings in Serbia and the majority of European countries. Confined masonry (CM) is a contemporary masonry technology that consists of load-bearing masonry walls enclosed in lightly reinforced horizontal and vertical reinforced concrete (RC) confining elements. CM has been widely used for the construction of low-rise and mid-rise residential buildings in Serbia and the region (Yugoslavia) since the 1960s. The design case study of a typical multi-family residential building located in Niš, Serbia (the third-largest urban center in the country), is discussed in this paper. This building was initially designed as a five-story CM structure in accordance with the 1981 Yugoslav seismic design code PTN-S, which was enforced in Serbia until 2019, when the Eurocode was adopted for official seismic design codes. Due to architectural constraints, the original design solution involving the CM system was not compliant with the code; hence, an alternative design using an RC-frame system with masonry infills was adopted. A comparison of two different design solutions provides insight into the different requirements of seismic design codes that have been used in the region. It is important to observe that seismic forces for RC structures determined in accordance with the PTN-S code are considerably lower compared to the ones determined according to EC 8-1, with the ratio ranging from 0.37 to 0.69. The seismic shear force according to Eurocode 8 is 1.46 times higher than the force that was used for seismic design according to the PTN-S code in the case of RC-frame structures. The results of an analysis of CM structures show that the seismic shear force in accordance with Eurocode 8 is almost 2.6 times higher than the force that was used for seismic design in accordance with the PTN-S code. The findings of this study are believed to be useful for understanding the difference in seismic design solutions for previous seismic design codes (which were used in the region for more than 40 years) and the present codes (Eurocodes).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207