Seismic Vulnerability of Non-Code-Compliant and Code-Compliant RC Buildings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the seismic vulnerability of non-code-compliant reinforced concrete (RC) buildings compared to code-based structures. The research uses linear elastic and nonlinear pushover analyses (NPA) to evaluate critical seismic performance parameters such as natural periods, mass participation, base shear, capacity curve, ductility ratio, overstrength factor, collapse mechanics, and nonlinear hysteretic damping (NHD). Structures designed following standards like NBC 205 (old), RUD 205 new, and Indian standard IS 1893 are analyzed against non-code-compliant building samples (NES1-NES6) to highlight performance gaps. The findings reveal that code-compliant buildings demonstrate significantly higher seismic resistance, greater flexibility, effective earthquake energy dissipation, higher ductility, overstrength factor, and base shear capacity. Non-code-compliant buildings often exhibit soft-story failure, with initial damage observed in the columns, highlighting their vulnerability during seismic events. Meanwhile, code-compliant RC buildings (RUD) designed with seismic principles demonstrate better seismic performance, adhering to the “strong column, weak beam” philosophy and superior strength-to-capacity ratios, higher overstrength factors, and enhanced ductility ratios, highlighting their resilience under seismic loads. The results conclude that addressing the code provisions ensures earthquake-resistant buildings with warranted ductile behavior for structural systems, enabling the achievement of the intended collapse mechanism.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it