ON THE ASSESSMENT OF RELIABILITY-CONSISTENT SEISMIC DESIGN LOAD CONTOUR MAPS FOR CANADIAN SITES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The geographically varying characteristics of the peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral acceleration (SA) can be appreciated from the probabilistic seismic hazard analysis results and seismic hazard maps, which formed the basis for the seismic design provisions recommended in the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC). The results of the seismic hazard also indicated that the coefficient of variation of the annual maximum PGA or SA for different regions in Canada can be very different. This implies that the use of a single return period in assigning the seismic design value may not ensure the reliability-consistent seismic design, where the reliability-consistent design is also known as risk-targeted design. Also, the results of reliability analysis suggest that the probability of incipient damage and the probability of incipient collapse vary very slowly with the return period employed to specify the seismic design load, and the required return period to achieve consistent reliability indices differs significantly for different values of the coefficient of variation of the seismic ground motion parameter. In the present study, we provide some preliminary results in comparing the 6th generation Canadian seismic hazard map (CanSHM6) to that obtained based on the spatially smoothed seismicity, and the develop reliability-consistent seismic design maps. For the evaluation of seismic hazard maps based on the smoothed seismicity, for consistency, the ground motion models used to develop CanSHM6 are adopted, where the smoothing is carried out by considering the earthquake magnitude dependency. The evaluation of the reliability-consistent seismic design maps based on an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system is also carried out by considering incipient collapse and incipient yield.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".