MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114095766 · doi:10.18280/rcma.305-605

Damage Quantification of Frame-Shear Wall Structure with Metal Rubber Dampers under Seismic Load

2020· article· en· W3114095766 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yagebai Zhao, Liangquan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des composites et des matériaux avancés · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province
KeywordsStructural engineeringShear wallDamperShear (geology)Natural rubberFrame (networking)Seismic loadingMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite materialMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The seismic load can bring serious damages to the coupling beams and frame beams in the frame-shear wall structure. Such damages can hardly be repaired, causing functional loss to the structure. One of the best ways to consume seismic energy input, rationalize the damage mode of structure, and prevent serious damages to the main components is to install metal rubber (MR) dampers materials in the frame-shear wall structure. Based on Park and Ang’s damage model, this paper presents pertinent formulas of damage indexes, and uses them to quantify the failure mode. Then, the correspondence was established between damage level of the target structure, reasonable damage mode, and damage index. Finally, two ABAQUS models of an 18-floor frame-shear wall structure were constructed: an uncontrolled structure (traditional frame-shear wall structure) and a controlled structure (frame-shear wall structure with MR dampers). Through comparative analysis, the characteristic parameters of the damper were determined for the reasonable damage mode, and the failure mechanism of the target structure was identified accurately under seismic load.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des composites et des matériaux avancésSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207