Evaluation of floor accelerations and spectra in linear and nonlinear regular RC frame buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project aims to investigate the influence of building ductility on nonstructural components (NSCs) acceleration demands. It targets also to evaluate simplified methods available in the literature as well as the equation proposed in the recent report NIST.GCR.18.917.43 to compute the NSCs acceleration demands in inelastic buildings. For this purpose, a typical 6-story frame building is designed according to 2015 edition of National Building Code of Canada (NBC) for four cases: 1) moderately ductile frame in Montreal, 2) conventional frame in Montreal, 3) ductile frame in Vancouver, and 4) conventional frame in Vancouver. Montreal and Vancouver were chosen to represent the seismicity in east and west of Canada, respectively. The aforementioned structures were subjected to twelve and seventeen artificial records with 2 and 10% per 50 year probability in Montreal and Vancouver, respectively. The selected and scaled records are compatible with the Uniform Hazard Spectra specified in the 2015 edition of the NBC. The seismic acceleration demands of NSCs in terms of height factor (Ax), component amplification factor (Ar), and floor response spectra (FRS) are generated by performing linear and nonlinear dynamic analysis, and applying the simplified method of Kothari et al. (2017), using SAP2000® software. The obtained factors Ax and Ar are compared to the ones proposed by NBC 2015 and the report NIST.GCR.18.917.43. The results showed that the frame ductility tends to reduce the NSCs acceleration demands and this benefit is less in the conventional construction frames as compared to the ductile and moderately ductile frames. Also, it was found that the seismic acceleration demands of NSCs are higher in Vancouver than in Montreal. The FRS generated by the simplified method are in a good agreement in terms of the shape with the ones obtained from the nonlinear dynamic analysis, but underestimate the ordinates of the FRS. Finally, the PFA/PGA demand suggested by the NBC 2015 is conservative for the inelastic building while the value of Ar is underestimated. The demands suggested by NIST.GCR.18.917.43 fit the required demands better than NBC 2015.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".