Application of hybrid simulation method for seismic performance evaluation of RC coupling beams subjected to realistic boundary condition
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 In a building subjected to seismic loading, large compressive force may develop in reinforced concrete (RC) coupling beams because of axial restraint imposed by the neighboring shear walls against the elongation of the coupling beams during the failure process. The axially compressive force can increase the shear stiffness and strength of the coupling beam and may change its failure mode. In this paper, a novel coupling beam testing procedure adopting hybrid simulation method is proposed in which the axial restraint is determined through hybrid simulation and the calculated axial restraint is imposed on a specimen during the test. RC coupling beams were tested by adopting both the proposed test procedure and the conventional testing approach in which the effect of the axial restraint is not accounted for. Test results depict a clear difference in the response of the coupling beam, such as shear capacity and failure mode, depending on the consideration of the axial restraint during the test. The test outcome demonstrates the usefulness and applicability of the proposed test procedure.
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