Background to seismic design provisions in CSA A23.3–04 for high-strength concrete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the background experimental and analytical research that was carried out to develop the provisions for the seismic design of high-strength concrete structures in the 2004 Canadian standard CSA A23.3–04. It is noted that the 1994 Canadian standard CSA A23.3–94 limited the concrete compressive strength to 55 MPa for the seismic design of nominally ductile and ductile structures, while the 1995 New Zealand Standard limited the concrete compressive strength to 70 MPa. In contrast, the 2008 American Concrete Institute (ACI) code ACI 318M has no upper limit on concrete strength, even for the seismic design of ductile structural elements. This tremendous variation in these limits indicated that more experimental evidence was needed. This paper presents experimental results of reversed cyclic loading tests on large-scale structural components as well as simulated seismic loading tests of a frame structure constructed with high-strength concrete. The goal of this collaborative research program at the University of Sherbrooke and McGill University was to determine the seismic design and detailing requirements for high-strength concrete structures to achieve the desired level of ductility and energy dissipation. The experimental programs include full-scale testing of the following: columns subjected to a pure axial load (square and circular columns); columns subjected to flexure and axial loads; beam-column subassemblages (square and circular columns); coupling beams in coupled wall structures; shear walls and a two-storey, three-dimensional frame structure. The results of the responses of the high-strength concrete structural specimens are compared with the responses of companion specimens constructed with normal-strength concrete.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".