IMPACT OF DRIFT ON THE AIR TIGHTNESS OF WINDOWS IN HIGH IMPORTANCE AND POST DISASTER BUILDINGS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent changes to the seismic provisions in the National Building Code of Canada have brought forward the need for the seismic force resisting system to behave elastically up to a specified return period earthquake for buildings with high importance or post disaster occupancies. This mirrors changes in the USA in ASCE 7 and ASCE 41 for performance based design of buildings with higher importance factors. This is an effort by code bodies to increase building structural performance as a means to achieve higher performance outcomes for occupancies that require minimizing time to functional recovery after an earthquake. However, the deferred submittal delivery model can cause the designers and contractors involved with non-structural components to lose sight of the performance goals of the main project. Yet increased post-earthquake performance of non-structural component restraint is likely the most economical way to achieve reduced recovery time and cost. This presentation will focus on the performance of window assemblies, a non-structural component of the building enclosure that is expensive to fix. There is a high reliance on window performance to achieve de-carbonization goals, and maintain occupant safety. None of the MEP systems and their operational carbon reduction goals would be achieved if the windows fail to maintain the air barrier. RJC completed full scale tests on windows subject to shaking in the NHERI Tallwood project. ASTM E 283 window testing was completed after each shaking cycle for a given return period to assess the air tightness performance degradation. Punched windows in both platform framed, and pass thru framed CFS wall assemblies were tested. The results intend to inform risk assessment and resilience planning methodologies to understand the potential of costly hidden damage to window assemblies. Relatively little research has been performed on the intersection of primary structure and building enclosure. But increasing this knowledge is key to future efforts to de-carbonizing built environment, and understanding the cost of functional recovery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".