Shake‐table test of a two‐storey low‐damage concrete wall building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The increasing need to reduce damage and downtime in modern buildings has led to the development of a low‐damage design philosophy, where the earthquake loads can be resisted with damage confined to easily replaceable components. Post‐tensioned (PT) concrete walls have emerged as a popular low‐damage structural system that have been implemented in a range of buildings. In order to provide essential evidence to support the development of low‐damage concrete structures, a system‐level shake‐table test was conducted on a two‐storey low‐damage concrete wall building implementing state‐of‐art design concepts. The test building included PT rocking walls that provide the primary lateral‐load resistance in both directions, a frame that utilized slotted beam connections, and a range of alternative energy dissipation devices that were installed at wall base or/and beam‐column joints. The building was subjected to 39 tests with a range of intensity ground motions, incorporating both unidirectional and bidirectional ground motions on the structure with different combinations of wall strength and energy dissipating devices. The building performed exceptionally well during the intense series of tests, confirming the suitability of both the design methods and the connection detailing implemented. The building achieved an immediate occupancy performance objective even when subjected to maximum considered earthquake hazard shaking. The building exhibited only minor damage at the conclusion of testing, with distributed cracking in the floors and cosmetic spalling in the wall toes that did not compromise structural capacity or integrity and could be easily repaired with minimal disruption. The test has provided a rich dataset that is available for further analysis of the building response and validation of design methods and numerical models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".