Assessment of seismic floor acceleration demands on nonstructural components in limited ductility RC frame buildings designed according to NBC 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research focuses on quantifying the seismic demands on the acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components (NSCs) attached to the RC moment-resisting frame buildings with limited ductility and designed according to the National Building Code of Canada (NBC 2015). A total of four benchmark structures with varying heights are considered in this study, and the seismic capacity of frame buildings has been evaluated using nonlinear static analysis performed in the SAP 2000 software. Time-history analyses have been performed on elastic and inelastic buildings utilizing simulated ground motion records compatible with Montreal uniform hazard spectra for firm ground (site class C in NBC 2015) with 475 and 2475-year return periods. Seismic acceleration demands on NSCs are evaluated by assessing the amplification of horizontal peak floor acceleration (PFA) and the component amplification factor along the height of buildings, compared to the various building code provisions, including NBC 2015, ASCE7, EC8, NZS 1170.5, and ATC. Finally, the overall seismic performance of NSCs is discussed by evaluating the component force factor, and a corresponding optimized profile is proposed to improve the estimation of seismic acceleration demands on NSCs in a moderate seismic zone.
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) | 0.001 | 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".