MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399652584 · doi:10.1177/87552930241256982

Database of tall pre‐Northridge steel moment frames for earthquake performance evaluations

2024· article· en· W4399652584 on OpenAlexaff
Francisco A. Galvis, Gregory G. Deierlein, Carlos Molina Hutt

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Spectra · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Standards and Technology
KeywordsSeismic analysisStructural engineeringDatabaseEngineeringFlangeFrame (networking)Space frameEarthquake engineeringMoment (physics)Column (typography)Computer scienceConnection (principal bundle)Mechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes a detailed database of tall steel moment frame buildings that are representative of the construction practices in San Francisco prior to the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The database contains design details that affect the structural performance of steel moment frames, including frame geometry, member cross‐section sizes, and gravity system characteristics. This database also captures irregularities that might impact seismic response, such as podiums, setbacks, mass concentrations (mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) floors), interrupted column lines, and atriums. The database includes information on 89 moment frame buildings, 14 of which were built before 1960 and are constructed with riveted connections, while the remaining 75 have welded flange connections like those that suffered brittle fracture during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The buildings are further distinguished between space frame, perimeter frame, and partial space frame systems. For about half (41/89) of the buildings in the database, section sizes of representative structural members were collected, which enabled the evaluation of the seismic design, elastic, and inelastic response using computational workflows. The design diagnostics indicate that most of the buildings meet the minimum seismic strength and strong‐column weak‐beam requirements of modern building codes, even though they were not necessarily designed with this intent. On the contrary, about one‐third of the buildings do not meet the seismic design drift limit of current codes, and about half of them have weak beam‐column panel zones. This database, associated structural analysis models, and processing scripts are published at DesignSafe https://doi.org/10.17603/ds2‐wjad‐r340 to facilitate collaboration and continued development of open‐source data for high‐resolution simulations to inform risk mitigation strategies on a regional scale.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 venueEarthquake SpectraSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207