Seismic energy dissipation in reinforced concrete beam: investigating damping formulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earthquake events in recent years and their consideration in performance-based design have led to the development of increasingly sophisticated physical models in structural computations. The aim of such models has been to predict the structural behaviour when excited by an earthquake. In particular, in the context of nuclear power plants (high-risk structures), operators must justify the airtightness of ageing structures to study the nonlinear behaviours of these structures, requiring the study and modelling of the phenomena associated with seismic energy dissipation in concrete. Energy dissipation has been described at two levels: global and local scales. At the local scale, material behaviour laws express some phenomena, such as concrete damage, friction, unilateral effects or plasticity. At the global scale, for dynamic analyses, energy dissipation has been practically modelled with equivalent viscous damping. Rayleigh-type damping formulations are still the most commonly used in engineering. Numerous formulations have been proposed in the literature, and some papers have compared some of these formulations. However, comparisons have rarely been based on experimental data, and the structures studied have varied considerably among studies. Therefore, the first objective of this paper is to assess the accuracy of a wide range of damping formulations by comparing them to the experimental data. Reinforced concrete beams were tested in quasistatic mode on a strong floor and in dynamic mode on a shaking table. The aim was to study the energy dissipation involving nonlinear mechanisms in concrete while steel rebar remained in their elastic range. The study developed in this paper concerns the dynamic behaviour of reinforced concrete critical structures, which are over-sized in engineering, under moderate earthquake levels. Thus, a beam multifibre model is proposed with two different concrete constitutive models. The second objective is to compare the energy dissipation at structural and material scales to evaluate the most efficient damping formulations to represent dynamic nonlinear responses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".