Ground Motion Duration Effects on the Seismic Risk Assessment of Wood Light-Frame Buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wood construction comprises a large portion of building stocks of several countries across the globe with high preparedness for earthquakes including Japan, Canada, and the United States. Built environments of these countries are prone to long-duration ground shakings due largely to the proximity of subduction faulting systems. However, the current seismic design requirements do not adequately emphasize this key feature of ground motions. This study evaluates the impact of long-duration ground motions on seismic risk characteristics of code-conforming wood lightframe buildings. To this end, a study matrix of wood light-frame buildings is developed incorporating with two different heights (i.e., 1-story and 4-story) and two distinct occupancies (i.e., multi-family and commercial) designed for a very high seismic region according to the latest pertinent design requirements of the United States. The seismic performance of these buildings is assessed through incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) in accordance with FEMA P-695 recommendations. Each building is analyzed using three sets of ground motions, i.e., far-field FEMA P-695 ground motions ensemble, an ensemble of short-duration ground motions, and an ensemble of long-duration ground motions. For each building, structural responses are obtained, and collapse fragility for these three sets of ground motions are derived. Next, the structural analysis results are relayed to a component-based loss assessment framework developed based on performance-based earthquake engineering principles in order to predict the seismic risk characteristics of the adopted buildings including the vulnerability function, risk curve, and average annual loss (AAL). The loss assessment is conducted separately for the structural and nonstructural components as well as the content of the buildings. The study reveals the considerable effect of ground motion duration on the seismic vulnerability of light-frame wood buildings, specifically in the case of 4-story wood light-frame building which reveals approximately a mean increase of 140.0% in the predicted losses.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".