Comportement sismique d'un système formé de murs couplés tronqués et d'un cadre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents results of a numerical investigation on the nonlinear seismic behavior of a reinforced concrete system made of truncated coupled shear walls (CSWs) and a frame. The objective of the study is twofold: (a) examine the seismic behavior of CSWframe systems with setbacks and (b) verify the adequacy of the National Building Code (NBC) as far as the design of such systems. The study considers two types of CSWs, coupled and partially coupled, two Canadian seismic zones, 4 and 6, six different levels of setbacks, and 10 historic seismic records encompassing a wide range of frequency content. Results of the study show that the CSWframe system with no setback offers a satisfactory seismic behavior with regards to the sequence of plastification and the ductility demand. For the truncated systems, the NBC recommendations that the static method is not adequate is justified. Also, in the presence of setbacks, the columns show a higher degree of plastification with a possibility of formation of plastic mechanism (soft story). The ductility demand is also higher and can exceed the accepted practical limit in certain cases.Key words: coupled shear walls, frame, reinforced concrete, setback, seismic behavior, code.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".