Governing Lateral Load on Tall Buildings in Canadian Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urbanization has led to a significant increase in the construction of tall buildings in Canada. The design of tall buildings must ensure structural integrity in withstanding lateral loads, such as wind and earthquakes. The tendency for a specific lateral load to govern building design varies based on the building characteristics, building height, and location of the building. There is a need to identify the governing lateral load (i.e., wind or earthquake) for use in the preliminary design and city-scale assessment. This study examines the governing lateral loads for tall buildings across different Canadian regions through a parametric analysis of a typical high-rise building based on the Commonwealth Advisory Aeronautical Council (CAARC) building. This research evaluates varying building heights, structural systems, and geographic locations under the guidelines of the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC). The analysis identifies the dominant lateral load, providing insights into assessing the existing infrastructure and optimal design strategies for enhancing building sustainability and resilience. Our findings highlight the critical role of geographic location in determining lateral load impacts and the necessity of context-specific design to promote long-term structural performance and environmental sustainability.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".