EXPERIMENTAL HYBRID SIMULATION OF THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF A FIVE-STOREY RC U-SHAPED SHEAR WALL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flanged Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls (RCSW) typically house elevators in buildings and are widely used as lateral load resisting systems. Seismic loading causes biaxial bending and torsional moments in these walls, making them more prone to damage compared to simple rectangular shear walls. Nonlinear 3D effects under multi-directional earthquakes make the prediction of seismic force demands and lateral displacement profiles for C-Shaped RCSWs even more challenging. While considerable research has been conducted to investigate and improve the performance of U-Shaped RCSWs, there is still a need for experimental data assessing their 3D seismic response to bi-directional ground motions. This paper describes an original investigation of the bidirectional seismic response of a five-storey reinforced concrete U-shaped core wall (USW) building through 6-degree-of-freedom experimental hybrid simulation testing. A large-scale (1:1.8) specimen representing the first storey of the USW (i.e. physical substructure) derived from a prototype designed per Canadian seismic provisions is constructed in a laboratory and subjected to combined axial load and bidirectional horizontal ground motions using a Multidirectional Hybrid Simulation Testing System including eight high-performance displacement-controlled actuators. The applied six degrees-of-freedom are coupled to a numerical substructure developed to model the second to fifth storeys of the building. The bidirectional seismic response of the studied building is examined through the discussion of selected results. The key response indicators of the tested specimen, e.g. displacements, strains, and forces, are measured using various types of sensors, including linear potentiometers (or pots) positioned at different locations of the specimen, strain gauges glued on selected steel rebars, and two pairs of cameras connected to a Digital Image Correlation (DIC) system. The results are compared to those from a purely numerical fiber element model of the whole building based on the wide-column model (WCM) approach. A very satisfactory agreement is found between the displacements and inter-storey drift ratios obtained numerically and experimentally for the first and upper storeys. The predictions of axial strains in the rebars and base shear forces also correlate well with the experimental findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".