MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996730908

Strategies to Reduce Seismic Losses and Improve Seismic Loss Assessments

2023· dissertation· en· W6996730908 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Outstanding Youth Science Fund Project of National Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyDipartimenti di EccellenzaFederal Emergency Management AgencyMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDemolitionResidualSeismic analysisDisplacement (psychology)Vibration controlDuctility (Earth science)Seismic riskSeismic loading
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While seismic design provisions have improved building safety and reduced collapse incidents, the socio-economic impact of earthquakes persists as a significant concern. Excessive residual drifts and damage to structural and non-structural components may lead to building demolition or costly repairs, resulting in business interruptions, economic losses, and protracted disaster recovery for cities. This thesis commences by exploring approaches to mitigate seismic losses by comparing controlled rocking braced frames (CRBFs) to more conventional ductile steel seismic force-resisting systems (SFRSs). Three widely used ductile SFRS types in the seismic design of buildings are special moment resisting frames (SMRFs), special concentrically braced frames (SCBFs), and buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs). However, these ductile SFRSs have been associated with prominent structural damage and substantial residual deformations in past observed earthquakes. CRBFs offer an alternative SFRS with less structural damage, but concerns exist about potential trade-offs, such as increased acceleration and displacement demands, and associated nonstructural damage. This thesis explores these trade-offs in buildings of varying heights with both ductile SFRSs and CRBFs, assessing the structural response under varying earthquakes and focusing on expected annual losses (EALs). The results show that CRBF-equipped buildings still have lower total EALs even when considering these factors. CRBFs offer designers a high degree of control during the design process, with previous research demonstrating low collapse risk across a broad spectrum of design options. However, some studies have also highlighted the increased demands on nonstructural components in CRBF buildings. Therefore, while CRBFs have shown satisfactory collapse performance for various design options, assessing these options in terms of nonstructural component performance is essential. This thesis examines how two design parameters, namely the response modification factor (R) for rocking joint design and the amplification factor for considering higher-mode forces in steel member capacity design, influence earthquake-induced losses in CRBFs. The results indicate that although total EALs do not differ significantly across various design options, the distribution of losses between repairable and irreparable losses varies. In the above-mentioned portions of the thesis, the seismic loss assessments follow the FEMA P-58 methodology, which involves two essential steps: first, evaluating damage using damage fragility curves, and then assessing the effects of this damage through consequence models. Both of these steps are critically evaluated in the second half of this thesis. Fragility curves, including those in the FEMA P58 library, typically use peak floor accelerations (PFAs) to estimate losses in acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components. However, PFAs, like peak ground accelerations (PGAs) for buildings, have limitations as engineering demand parameters (EDPs) because they do not reflect the period of these components. In search of suitable options for creating seismic damage fragility curves, this thesis evaluates fifteen other EDPs proposed in the literature. This thesis also addresses an ambiguity in FEMA P-58's consequence modeling. The modeling of economies of scale is an integral part of consequence modeling. However, the lack of a clear definition for aggregate damage, which is a factor that significantly influences component modeling of economies of scale, can substantially impact simulated repair costs, repair times, and performance assessment. Overall, this thesis provides insights into reducing seismic losses by designing CRBFs as an alternative to commonly used SFRSs, and into improving seismic loss assessments by enhancing the damage fragility curves and consequence models within the widely-used FEMA P58 methodology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207