Seismic performance of a full-scale, reinforced high-performance concrete building. Part II: Analytical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Full-scale tests provide valuable information on the characteristics of building structures that can be used to evaluate design methods, to calibrate modelling techniques, and to determine damage corresponding to loading levels. These tests are scarce due to the enormous requirements in testing space and specialized testing equipment. The seismic behaviour of a full-scale, two-storey, reinforced high-performance concrete building designed with moderate ductility detailing is evaluated by pseudo-dynamic testing, during which increasing seismic loads are applied, resulting in increasing levels of permanent damage to the structure. This paper presents the analytical predictions of the test results using a global force–displacement parameters approach and a refined approach, half-way between global modelling and finite element modelling, using force–strain parameters and damage mechanics principles. Identification of the parameters required to describe the response parameters are presented together with a description of the numerical procedures used in each approach. It is shown that the predictions are in good agreement with the test results. Advantages and disadvantages of each approach are highlighted in the context of performance-based analysis and design.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".