Design and commissioning of novel test apparatus for underground structures and its application in seismic damage testing of prefabricated subway station
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents the design and commissioning of a novel pseudo‐static test apparatus for underground structures that accounts for soil‐structure interaction by simulating the soil with suitably designed springs. The developed apparatus was employed to conduct 1:10 large scale tests on a two‐story three‐span prefabricated subway station structure. Two comparative cyclic load tests were conducted: one involved the developed springs‐structure system; and one involved the structure alone (no springs). The test results demonstrated important differences in the damage location, damage degree, bearing capacity, and deformation capacity of the prefabricated subway station structure under the two loading conditions (i.e., with and without springs). The presence of springs (i.e., soil‐structure interaction) enhanced the lateral collapse resistance of the underground structure and affected the inter‐story displacement ratio (IDR) between the upper and lower layers of the two‐story prefabricated subway station structure. However, it did not affect the deformation coordination of the walls and columns of each layer. A finite element model of the prototype station was also established to conduct dynamic time history analysis simulating the soil‐structure interaction. The results from the dynamic analysis validated the effectiveness of the pseudo‐static test method employing the spring‐structure system. The excellent agreement between the calculated dynamic responses and the responses obtained from the pseudo static tests confirmed the ability of the developed apparatus to conduct seismic tests on complex large‐scale underground structures such as prefabricated subway stations. Thus, this test methodology might be utilized to attain valuable insights into the seismic performance of prefabricated subway stations at a relatively low cost and effort.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".