Evaluating the influence of detailing on the seismic performance of diagonally reinforced coupling beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diagonally reinforced coupling beams (DRCBs) play a critical role in energy dissipation and ductility in reinforced concrete core walls subjected to seismic forces. This study evaluates the cyclic response of DRCBs and examines potential limitations in US and Canadian design codes. A database of 51 experimental tests is compiled to assess the influence of embedded longitudinal bars (ELB), axial restraints (AR), and confinement details on force-deformation behavior. Results indicate that specimens with AR or ELB exhibit significant overstrength, which can be estimated using sectional analysis and incorporating the flexural contribution of longitudinal bars in calculations. DRCBs without AR or ELB had a median overstrength around 1.25; however, the presence of AR or ELB can increase shear forces by a further 30 to 40 percent. Specimens with low diagonal reinforcement also demonstrated reduced rotational capacity. Based on these findings, a new force design limit is proposed, and it is recommended that seismic codes introduce lower rotational limits for low-aspect ratio coupling beams to better reflect observed performance.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".