Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls Detailed with Innovative Materials: Seismic Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the experimental results of a pilot study performed on the seismic performance of three types of damage-resistant, slender reinforced concrete (RC) shear walls. The study explores three innovative schemes for the mitigation of postearthquake damage, including permanent lateral deformation and concrete damage, in RC shear walls. Each innovative shear wall had an aspect ratio of 2.0 and was reinforced with a hybrid reinforcing system consisting of mild steel and a type of self-centering reinforcement such as shape memory alloy bars, glass fiber reinforced polymer bars, or high-strength steel strands. To mitigate concrete damage, the walls were detailed with fiber reinforced cementitious composites, either engineered cementitious composite or steel fiber reinforced concrete. The specimens were supported as cantilevers, and then were tested up to failure under pseudo-static, cyclic loads. As test results showed, the innovative shear walls had smaller residual drift ratios and mitigated damage with respect to a conventional RC shear wall. The innovative walls also showed significant levels of energy dissipation and ductility throughout testing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".