Compression failure of thin concrete walls during 2010 Chile earthquake: lessons for Canadian design practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous thin concrete walls failed in compression during the 2010 Chile earthquake. Experiments on small wall elements indicate that thin concrete walls without tied vertical reinforcement may fail very suddenly at uniform compression strains as low as 0.001 due to the thin layer of concrete between two layers of reinforcement becoming unstable. A test on a wall subjected to axial compression and strong-axis bending demonstrated that unlike a tied column, a thin concrete wall can suddenly lose all axial load-carrying capacity. Nonlinear response history analysis of a typical Chilean high-rise shear wall building indicates small global drift demands and correspondingly small curvature and compression strain demands when subjected to the ground motions measured in Santiago, which explains why most buildings were not damaged. Nonlinear finite element analysis of a typical wall step-back irregularity indicates the increase in maximum compression strains due to a reduction in wall length is much larger than predicted by a sectional analysis. Based on all the results of the current study, a number of significant changes are proposed for the 2014 edition of CSA A23.3 to avoid compression failures of thin concrete walls, including limiting the axial compression force applied to thin bearing walls, accounting for unexpected strong-axis bending of thin bearing walls, and limiting the compression strain demands on thin concrete shear walls.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".