Hybrid simulation testing of two-storey low-aspect-ratio nuclear RC shear walls with normal- and high-strength reinforcement: Seismic performance evaluation and economic assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low-aspect-ratio reinforced concrete (RC) shear walls have been commonly used in several nuclear facilities in containment and safety-related structures. Despite being a potential alternative to reduce rebar congestion and subsequently minimize complex construction activities typically associated with nuclear facilities, there has been limited experimental research on investigating the impact of using high-strength reinforcement (HSR) on the seismic performance of such walls, particularly in a multi-storey context. This lack of research is mainly due to considerable challenges imposed when testing such multi-storey nuclear RC shear walls in most laboratories. Therefore, the current study presents the experimental results of two two-storey low-aspect-ratio nuclear RC shear walls that were tested utilizing the seismic hybrid simulation testing technique. In this respect, walls W1-NSR and W2-HSR were designed using normal-strength reinforcement (NSR) and HSR, respectively, where the two test walls had comparable capacities to allow for direct comparisons. Both walls were subjected to various ground motion levels, spanning from operational to design and beyond-design earthquake scenarios. The experimental findings are then presented to include the force-displacement responses, the multi-storey effects, ductility capacities, lateral and rotational stiffnesses, rebar strains, and cracking patterns of the test walls. Subsequently, an economic assessment was carried out to quantify the total rebar weights and the corresponding construction costs of such walls. In addition, the expected seismic repair costs were determined based on a three-dimensional digital image correlation technique that provided information on the damage states of the test walls under different earthquake levels. The results show that although W1-NSR and W2-HSR attained similar force and moment capacities, W2-HSR achieved a relatively higher ductility capacity than W1-NSR. However, larger cracks were observed in W2-HSR compared to W1-NSR, which was attributed to the associated larger rebar spacing in the former relative to the latter. The economic assessment results demonstrate that using HSR minimized the rebar weights and construction costs, while both walls had similar seismic repair costs at their design and beyond-design earthquake levels. Both the seismic performance and economic assessment results presented in the current study are expected to aid future editions of relevant design standards in adopting HSR in nuclear construction practice.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".