Seismic performance of reinforced concrete (RC) shear walls with and without damped outriggers and controlled rocking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reinforced concrete shear wall system (RCSW) is one of the most prevalent lateral force-resisting systems in high-rise buildings worldwide. With increasing demands for superior seismic performance , constructability , and cost-effectiveness, various new technologies have been proposed in recent years. Among these, the controlled outriggered rocking wall (CORW) system is developed as a promising solution to improve the seismic performance of conventional RC shear wall systems. CORW system combines a damped outrigger (at roof level) and a controlled rocking (at the base) to a conventional RC shear wall system. In this study, the seismic performance of the conventional RC shear wall system is compared with the same system with a damped outrigger (at roof level), the same system with controlled rocking (at the base) and the CORW system. The results show that the seismic performance of conventional RC shear wall system can be significantly improved by introducing either, (a) damped outrigger at roof level, (b) controlled rocking at base level, or using the proposed CORW system.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".