COLLAPSE RISK OF TALL NON-DUCTILE REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALL BUILDINGS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the late 1950s, tall reinforced concrete shear wall (RCSW) buildings have been predominant (~80% of all tall buildings) in the Metro Vancouver region of southwestern British Columbia. In the mid-1980s, a number of factors, including ductility and other detailing requirements, improved the design and construction practice of these buildings. The new design requirements highlighted the vulnerabilities of RCSW buildings constructed prior to the 1980s. These vulnerabilities include the use of thin walls (~200 mm) with a single layer of reinforcement, the absence of boundary zones, and low wall areas relative to the floor area. This study assesses the collapse risk of this taxonomy of buildings by evaluating ten archetypes, five with 10 stories and five with 30 stories in height, based on the trends observed in a detailed inventory of this type of building. The archetype buildings are also checked against the strength requirements of the corresponding building code. Nonlinear structural analysis models of the archetype buildings are developed in OpenSeesPy. A multiple stripe analysis is carried out at four distinct hazard levels to characterize the collapse risk of each archetype building. Ground motion records were selected per the requirements of the 2015 National Building Code of Canada representing three unique tectonic regimes: crustal, intraslab and interface earthquakes. The results of the study are used to investigate the variability in the collapse risk of buildings within the taxonomy of interest. The results indicate significantly from building to building, with the 50-year collapse risk ranging from 6% to 35%, which is significantly higher than the 1% target found in modern US building codes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".