SEISMIC FRAGILITY ASSESSMENT OF RETROFITTING STEEL BUILDING IN EASTERN CANADA DESIGNED IN THE 1960S
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many existing steel buildings in Canada were constructed prior to the implementation of seismic design provisions. Those older buildings fail to meet current seismic codes and require seismic retrofits to mitigate their seismic vulnerability. A type of friction mechanism used in Canada has the potential to reduce seismic damage to buildings by supplementing additional capacity, stiffness, and energy dissipation to resist earthquake loading. This study explores the efficacy of seismic upgrades through the application of a braced frame incorporating a friction mechanism as the Seismic Force Resisting System (SFRS), based on a case study to retrofit a six-story steel moment-resisting frame (MRF) office building in eastern Canada. The steel MRF was initially designed for wind load as per the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) 1960, and it cannot satisfy the current seismic design provisions in NBCC 2020. In this regard, however, the state of practice has limited the application of this SFRS to its equivalence with other bracing SFRS for seismic retrofits of existing building structures, and the extent to which the seismic fragility and risk is additionally reduced under prescriptive force- or displacement-based design procedures is often not explored in day-to-day practice. Therefore, the case-study steel MRF is retrofitted with this SFRS against target drift limits using an equivalent static force procedure under typical values assigned for ductility and overstrength factors, whereas the effectiveness of the retrofit design is comprehensively assessed through fragility curves that convolve conditional mean spectra, ground motion selection, non-linear time history analysis, probabilistic seismic demand models, and capacity limit state models for both structural and non-structural components. This study presents the results observed regarding the additional reduction in the seismic fragilities of drift-sensitive structural and non-structural components.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".