Seismic response of structural walls: recent developments
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
It is postulated that for purposes of seismic design, the ductile behaviour of lateral force-resisting wall components, elements, and indeed the entire system can be satisfactorily simulated by bilinear forcedisplacement modeling. This enables displacement relationships between the system and its constituent components at a particular limit state to be readily established. To this end, some widely used fallacies, relevant to the transition from the elastic to the plastic domain of behaviour, are exposed. A redefinition of stiffness and yield displacement allows more realistic predictions of the important feature of seismic response, component displacements, to be made. The concepts are rational, yet very simple. Their applications are interwoven with the designer's intentions. Contrary to current design practice, whereby a specific global displacement ductility capacity is prescribed for a particular structural class, the designer can determine the acceptable displacement demand to be imposed on the system. This should protect critical components against excessive displacements. Specific intended displacement demands and capacities of systems comprising reinforced concrete cantilever and coupled walls can be estimated.Key words: ductility, displacements, reinforced concrete, seismic design, stiffness, structural walls.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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