ASSESSMENT OF PLAN IRREGULARITY LIMITS IN THE NEW ZEALAND STANDARD - NZS 1170.5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buildings with plan irregularities are susceptible to increased damage levels under seismic excitation. This is due to the amplification and concentration of demands on certain structural members stemming from torsional modes of response. NZS 1170.5 specifies a limit on the torsional irregularity allowed in buildings to mitigate these effects. However, there are no additional restrictions or guidelines on acceptable global response of the structure. This is in contrast with other specifications, such as the American and Canadian building codes, which provide system restrictions and acceptable global structural response based on the magnitude of seismic hazard. Considering these differences, this research is focused on quantifying the effectiveness of NZS 1170.5 in dealing with plan-irregular buildings relative to other international standards. The first phase of this work consisted of a comprehensive literature review that summarized the irregularity requirements from a significant number of international guidelines. The current phase of the work consists of a comparative study that will assess the seismic performance of two selected case study buildings - one with a reinforced concrete shear wall lateral force resisting system and the other with special steel moment frames - modelled to capture various levels of plan irregularities while accounting for the response thresholds and system restrictions in several international building codes. These case study buildings are representative of current design practices in New Zealand and will be modelled using nonlinear numerical techniques. The case study buildings will be subjected to spectrally matched, hazard-consistent ground motions scaled to varying site-specific intensities. The results from this study will provide quantitative data that will be used to update the plan irregularity specifications in New Zealand.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".