Performance evaluation of infilled rocking wall frame structure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Conventional reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures are prone to soft‐story mechanism. This deficiency can be eliminated by introducing rocking wall system. Previously studied rocking wall systems usually have the rocking wall situated outside the frame, which results in some challenges and inconvenience. In the study, a novel infilled rocking wall frame (IRWF) system is proposed, which uses infilled RC wall to create a rocking wall within the RC frame. To evaluate seismic performance of the proposed system, both an IRWF model and an RC frame (RCF) model were designed according to Chinese seismic design code. Time history analysis and incremental dynamic analysis were conducted to compare both systems. The results show that IRWF system has more uniform drift and higher collapse margin ratio compared to the RCF system. Economic evaluation of IRWF system was investigated using the state‐of‐the‐art ATC‐58 performance‐based assessment methodology. The result shows superior performance of the IRWF system. The annualized loss of the IRWF model is about 28% less than the RCF model. This shows IRWF system is a viable and efficient alternative resilient seismic force resisting system.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it