MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162034528 · doi:10.82308/30424

Seismic evaluation and retrofit of a precast concrete structure

2004· dissertation· en· W7162034528 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tik Lun William Lim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrecast concreteSeismic analysisShear (geology)RoofSeismic retrofitSeismic loading

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A single-storey precast concrete structure constructed in 1963 with masonry-infilled walls was selected for a seismic evaluation. The structure is located in the Montreal region, and is considered a post-disaster emergency building since it houses spare parts for municipal facilities. The warehouse was first evaluated through a visual inspection and identified as being seismically vulnerable. A series of three-dimensional models of the structure were analyzed to evaluate the seismic performance of the structure with respect to the seismic design requirements of the 1995 and 1965 edition of National Building Code of Canada (NBCC). The structural models were analyzed using a linear static analysis accounting for the effects of different diaphragm configurations on the lateral load resisting columns and the effects of masonry-infilled walls. The seismic analyses showed that the warehouse does not satisfy either of the NBCC 1995 and NBCC 1965 requirements. A seismic rehabilitation scheme is proposed comprising the addition of reinforced concrete shear walls, steel braces and an upgraded roof diaphragm. The proposed retrofit satisfies the seismic design requirements of NBCC 1995. Finally, the proposed seismic design provisions of NBCC 2005 are briefly summarized and the impact of the new seismic design provisions on the retrofitted structure is discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207