FUNDAMENTAL STUDY ON ROTATING CRITERIA OF SEISMIC WALLS IN SEISMIC EVALUATION OF EXISTING RC BUILDINGS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation (screening) of the seismic performance of RC buildings has been widely carried out in various ways mainly based on the manual issued by Japan Disaster Prevention Association. According to results of the evaluation to date, failure mode of aseismic walls are apt to be estimated as "rotation", in spite of the fact that such failure mode has been hardly recognized in the past disasters, except for the case of collapses due to uneven settlement or liquifation of ground. In the present study, firstly the resisting mechanism of a structure against rotating internal walls is analysed, using the result by "the 3^ -step aseismic evaluation method" for a typical old building of 3 stories. Secondly, the effect of foundation piles on the rotation bearing capacity of seismic walls is discussed. As a result, it is pointed out that the main factors affecting the bearing capacity are resisting forces due to dead load, coupling beams, transverse walls, and foundation piles. In order to change the failure mode of rotation into another one (bending or shear), however, combination of two or more resisting forces due to the above such factors is required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".