Impact of Drying on Structural Performance of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to experimentally investigate the effect of drying on a shear wall, and to clarify the mechanism of the changes in the structural performance due to drying. Two sufficiently hydrated wall specimens are prepared. Then, one is loaded without drying, while the other is tested after sufficient drying until the shrinkage of concrete reaches an equi-librium state. The results show a reduction in the initial stiffness and little change in the ultimate shear strength in the dry specimen, in spite of an increase in the compressive strength. Reproduction numerical analysis using Rigid Body Spring-network Model (RBSM) coupled with a truss network model for moisture transport is conducted, and an ac-ceptable agreement is confirmed in the ultimate strength and the crack patterns. From the numerical results, it is revealed that two factors are balanced in the ultimate shear strength after drying in this experiment: 1) an increase in the com-pressive strength due to aging (material scale), and 2) a strength reduction due to lateral strain, which is evaluated using the formula suggested by Vecchio and Collins (1986) (member scale). This indicates that the wall reinforcement ratio and concrete shrinkage have the influence on the ultimate strength through increasing/decreasing the number of cracks and the crack width.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".