Collapse Risk of Tall Nonductile Reinforced Concrete Shear Wall 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
Existing buildings, particularly those predating modern building codes, pose significant seismic risk in regions of high seismicity worldwide. In the City of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, reinforced concrete shear wall (RCSW) buildings are prevalent in the construction of tall buildings. Many of these buildings were constructed before the introduction of ductility requirements in the Canadian concrete standard during the mid-1980s, and they predominantly serve as residences for renters, seniors, and low-income populations. This study quantifies the collapse risk of these tall nonductile RCSW buildings to understand their seismic vulnerability. Leveraging a comprehensive database of pre-1980 RCSW buildings, a framework is proposed to generate representative archetypes using a random forest regression model. An automated workflow is developed to facilitate nonlinear structural analyses of these buildings, and a sample of 25 archetypes of varying heights, i.e., 10–30 stories, is selected to evaluate their seismic performance. The results indicate a high risk of collapse, ranging from 9% to 29% in 50 years, significantly higher than the collapse risk target of 1% in 50 years in US standards. The results also indicate that collapse risk can be significantly underestimated when (1) taxonomy-level fragility functions are employed to characterize the performance of this unique typology of buildings, and (2) when the ground motion amplification effects of the Georgia sedimentary basin below Metro Vancouver are neglected.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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