Seismic interactions between suspended ceilings and nonstructural partition walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims at observing the coupling behaviours between suspended ceilings and partition walls in terms of their global seismic performance using full-scale shake table tests. The suspended ceilings with planar dimensions of <TEX>$6.0m{\times}3.6m$</TEX> were tested with two types of panels: acoustic lay-in and metal clip-on panels. They were further categorized as seismic-braced, seismic-unbraced, and non-seismic installations. Also, two configurations of 2.7 m high partition wall specimens, with C-shape and I-shape in the plane layouts, were tested. In total, seven ceiling-partition-coupling (CPC) specimens were tested utilizing a unidirectional seismic simulator. The test results indicate that the damage patterns of the tested CPC systems included failure of the ceiling grids, shearing-off of the wall top railing, and, most destructively, numerous partial detachments and falling of the ceiling panels. The loss of panels was mostly concentrated near the center of the tested partition wall. The testing results also confirmed that the failure mode of the non-seismic CPC systems was brittle: The whole system would collapse suddenly all at once when the magnitude of the inputs hit the capacity threshold, rather than displaying progressive damage. Overall, the seismic capacity of the unbraced and braced CPC systems could be up to 1.23 g and 2.67 g, respectively; these accelerations were both achieved at the base of the partition wall. Nonetheless, for practical applications, it is noteworthy that the three-dimensional nature of seismic excitations and the size effect of the ceiling area are parameters that exacerbate the CPC's seismic response so that their actual capacity may be dramatically decreased, leading to important losses even in moderate seismic events.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".