Seismic shear demand on wall segments of ductile coupled shear walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of nonlinear dynamic analyses carried out on ductile coupled shear walls (CSWs) to investigate the seismic shear demand on wall segments. The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the dynamic amplification and establish a code-format force reduction factor for shear, applicable in Canada. The study considered three Canadian seismic zones (4, 5, and 6), five numbers of storeys (6, 10, 15, 20, and 30), three degrees of coupling (low, medium, and high), and 10 historical earthquake records encompassing a broad range of frequency contents. Overall, 450 analyses were performed. Results indicate that the New Zealand amplification factor βv presently used in Canada overestimates the dynamic amplification. Additionally, the use of the overstrength factor for shear γp for tension walls may underestimate their shear resistance and result in a shear failure. Conversely, the use of γp for compression walls provided a reasonable factor of safety. Finally, for the shear design of CSWs, two alternative approaches are suggested. The first involves the use of a force reduction factor for shear, Rv, including the dynamic amplification factor γd and the overstrength factor γp as follows: Rv = 2.0 for Za > Zv, Rv = 1.0 for Za < Zv, and Rv = 1.3 for Za = Zv, where Za and Zv are acceleration- and velocity-related zonal identifiers. The second approach implies the use of the overstrength factor γp of the compression wall for both walls of CSWs and βv = 1.0.Key words: coupled shear walls, reinforced concrete, degree of coupling, seismic, frequency content, shear demand, dynamic amplification factor, force reduction factor for shear.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".