Seismic behaviour of slender concrete walls with high-strength reinforcement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twelve concrete walls with 500 MPa reinforcement and aspect ratios of 2.8 and 2.15 were tested under cyclic loading. Seismic behaviour was evaluated through analysis of failure characteristics, hysteretic curves, energy dissipation, and ductility. Results demonstrated that walls with an aspect ratio of 2.8 exhibited flexure-dominant failure modes, while those with an aspect ratio of 2.15 exhibited bending-shear failure modes. All specimens exhibited exceptional ultimate deformation capacity, sustaining a lateral drift ratio of 2.0% without obvious loss of lateral strength. Flanged concrete walls exhibited higher load-bearing capacity when the web was in compression, whereas better displacement ductility was achieved when the web was in tension. Compared with rectangular walls, flanged walls significantly enhanced strength and stiffness, but exhibited reduced ductility when the web was in compression. To ensure displacement ductility coefficients exceeding 3.0 for flanged walls with axial load ratios greater than 0.50 under web compression, the transverse reinforcement ratio at the free web boundary should surpass GB 50011-2010 requirements by more than 30%; however, the flange concrete remained intact without spalling, suggesting that the special confined reinforcement specified in GB 50011-2010 for flange ends was unnecessary.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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".