SEISMIC CODE PROVISIONS FOR POST-DISASTER BUILDINGS IN CANADA, USA, AND NEW ZEALAND: A COMPARISON
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seismic code provisions for post-disaster buildings vary across the world. There are similarities among these codes such as having a higher importance factor and ductility level in addition to limiting drift demand. On the other hand, limitations on building systems and irregularities that are applicable to post-disaster buildings, hazard levels, structural analysis methods, and ductility requirements are different in the corresponding building codes. The 2020 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) has introduced new provisions and performance requirements for post-disaster buildings (provision 4.1.8.23.). This new provision aims to improve the serviceability of such buildings when subjected to lower intensity ground motions that occur more frequently than the design ground motions in moderate-to-high seismic regions. The post-disaster buildings are designed to remain elastic with RdRo = 1.3 along with the maximum story drift being limited to less than 0.5% when subjected to a seismic hazard corresponding to 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years. This provision results in a significant change in the design and proportioning of the lateral system and foundation of post-disaster buildings in high seismic regions in Canada. This paper presents a comparative study between seismic design of a post-disaster building located in Greater Victoria Canada using 2020 NBCC, seismic design of a post-disaster building located in Seattle USA using the newly updated ASCE/SEI 7-22 and the seismic design of a post-disaster building located in Christchurch New Zealand using the New Zealand standards for structural design (NZS 1170.5:2004 – incorporating Amendment No. 1 published Sept. 2016). First, a brief description of the evolution and backgrounds of each regulation is given. A discussion of the three design procedures is then presented, all three based on a prescriptive approach. Finally, seismic design of a sample, ten–story building with two levels of below-grade parking located in Greater Victoria, Seattle and Christchurch are compared. The performance of the prototype building is then further examined by performing nonlinear response history analysis following the requirements of PEER TBI II and explicitly checking the performance of the building with respect to target reliability thresholds. The results of the design comparison present a significant difference between the three design practices.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".