Experimental seismic performance assessment of existing multi-panel flat arch terra cotta floor diaphragms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a major rehabilitation project on the Centre Block of Parliamentary Buildings of Canada, an experimental investigation of the seismic behaviour of its existing terra cotta flat arch diaphragms is performed at the National Research Council Canada (NRC). Terra cotta flat arch diaphragms are a brittle floor system used in North America in the early 1900s. This system has demonstrated adequate behaviour to gravity loads as well as providing fire separation; however, its response to seismic loads has not been well assessed. An experimental program was needed to obtain data that will support the consulting design team in assessing the existing seismic performance of the floor diaphragms, as well as selecting appropriate retrofitting strategies for rehabilitating to meet the design objectives in mitigating seismic hazards. The overall testing program included obtaining samples of existing 100-year-old terra cotta tiles and determining material properties and exact physical dimensions of tiles. This information was needed to replicate existing tiles to be used in full-scale samples. To study the seismic performance of existing terra cotta flat arch diaphragms, several tests were performed on tiles, mortar mixes, tiles assemblies, and full-scale single-panel and multi-panel frames infilled with terra cotta tiles. Several single-panel and multi-panel samples were tested with different length-to-width ratios to resemble different on-site conditions. The single-panel frames were loaded diagonally under quasi-static loads, while the multi-panel frames are loaded laterally under cyclic loading. In this paper, the experimental results from the testing of multi-panel frames are presented. The load-displacement responses obtained from the testing can be used as input parameters by the consulting design team for the analysis and design of retrofitting alternatives for the floor system. Three multi-panel frames are tested with overall dimensions of approximately 4.5 m × 4.5 m. Testing is conducted to establish the capacity and behaviour of sliding shear within the terra cotta arches. The testing of multi-panel frames including peak and post-peak states of the frames, load-displacement response, and the sliding shear capacity are discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".