Design of RC Shear Wall Buildings at Different Performance Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earthquake catastrophes continue to cause substantial damage and casualties in many parts of the world. Despite design codes and standards having succeeded in reducing life losses during earthquakes, the level of damage in buildings after severe earthquakes still cannot be precisely predicted. Code provisions focus on the safety of buildings with no consideration of the amount of damage expected after an event. Current U.S. guidelines designate three performance levels related to the inelastic rotational demands of RC shear walls––immediate occupancy, life safety, and collapse prevention. The damage corresponding to these performance levels is minor, moderate, and severe, respectively. In the current study, these performance limits were implemented, along with other recognized standards, in order to design four RC ductile shear wall buildings with different heights located in a high seismic hazard zone. Each building was designed based on Canadian building codes to reach the three designated performance levels. For each case, the quantities of the constitutive materials of the RC shear walls were estimated and compared. The impact of the targeted performance level on the building’s gravity-load-resisting system was also investigated. The cost effectiveness of using moderately ductile shear walls in high seismic hazard zones was also examined.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".