Deformation and ductility considerations of ductile coupled shear walls located in Canadian seismic regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of an analytical study on the nonlinear deformation and ductility response of reinforced concrete ductile coupled shear walls (CSWs) under seismic loadings. The CSWs were designed, calculated, and detailed in compliance with the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) 1995 and the Canadian Concrete Standard CAN3-A23.3-94. The parameters and assumptions of the study as well as the description of the models and the procedure were fully described elsewhere. Results indicated that the maximum interstorey drift from dynamic analyses was well below that obtained from static analyses with NBCC specified lateral forces. It was also found to be substantially lower for tall CSWs compared to short or medium-height walls, and decreased only slightly as the degree of coupling increased within the range considered in this study. It was also highest for seismic records with low PGA/PGV ratios. Plastic hinge rotations as well as accumulated plastic hinge rotations generally decreased as the number of storeys increased. The maximum displacement ductility demand factor remained below the NBCC value of 4.0 specified for ductile CSWs. The influence of degree of coupling on the maximum displacement ductility demand factor was found negligible. Also, the maximum displacement ductility demand factor generally decreased as the number of storeys increased. The maximum rotational ductility demand factor in coupling beams decreased as the number of storeys increased and was generally less than the practical accepted limit of 10, except for a few short CSWs.Key words: coupled shear walls, reinforced concrete, seismic, degree of coupling, frequency content, interstorey drift, plastic hinge deformation, ductility.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".