Comparison of Seismic Performance Levels of Five-Story Limited Ductility and Confined Masonry Structures, Lima, Perú
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the seismic behavior of a five-story multifamily building by comparing two structural systems: Limited Ductility Walls (LDW) and Confined Masonry Walls (CMW).The structural models were developed using Estera 3D software, and the analysis was carried out exclusively through nonlinear static analysis (pushover).Four levels of seismic demand were considered: frequent, occasional, design, and maximum earthquakes.Both systems achieved the same structural performance levels according to code-based criteria: full operation for the frequent earthquake; operation with minor damage for the occasional and design earthquakes; and life safety for the maximum earthquake.However, quantitative results show better performance for the LDW system.For the design earthquake, the LDW system exhibited a maximum base shear of 1141.36 tons and a top-level displacement of 7.098 cm, while the CMW system reached 2371.63 tons and 2.9696 cm, respectively.In terms of spectral acceleration, LDW registered 935.20 gal compared to 1098 gal for CMW.For the maximum earthquake, the LDW system reached a displacement of 10.68 cm and a base shear of 1272.15 tons, whereas the CMW system reached 8.0686 cm and 2291.71tons.These results indicate that, although both systems meet the established performance objectives, the LDW system demonstrates more efficient structural behavior and greater energy dissipation capacity under severe seismic events.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".