System-Level Seismic Performance Assessment of an Asymmetrical Reinforced Concrete Block Shear Wall Building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a two-story reinforced concrete block scaled building was tested to failure under fully reversed quasi-static displacement-controlled loading. The building’s seismic force-resisting system (SFRS) consisted of eight structural walls in total, with four walls, aligned along the loading direction, placed asymmetrically to result in a center of rigidity eccentricity from the floor center of mass of approximately 20% of the building width, evaluated on the basis of elastic analysis. The other four orthogonal walls were placed symmetrically around the building floor center of mass to provide torsional restraints to the building. As such, the focus of the paper is on evaluating the influence of twist as a system-level aspect on the ductility capacity of the building and the ductility and strength demands of its wall components. This paper presents the details of the building SFRS and wall configurations and characteristics and the main test observations and results. This is followed by analyses of the experimental results that showed that, at the system level, each wall would be subjected to significantly different displacement/strength demands throughout the building’s loading history. These different demand levels are functions of the interaction between the system-level twist response and the resulting displacement demands imposed on each wall component and the subsequent load redistribution following different component damage. The study showed that the variation in the inelastic response characteristics of the different walls comprising the building’s SFRS and wall strength contributions to the overall building capacity and the subsequently mobilized ductility levels are all factors that should be considered when evaluating the overall building SFRS performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".