MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132446714

Seismic performance analysis of high-rise RC shear walls reinforced with superelastic shape memory alloys

2019· article· en· W7132446714 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
M. Maciel, W. L. Cortes-Puentes, D. Palermo

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShear wallShape-memory alloyPlastic hingeDissipationHingeShear (geology)Reinforced concreteFinite element methodResidual
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The seismic performance of hybrid Shape Memory Alloy (SMA)-steel concrete shear walls containing Nickel-Titanium (Ni-Ti) superelastic SMA as alternative reinforcement in the plastic hinge zone is investigated. This wall system permits self-centering with high levels of energy dissipation and significant reduction of permanent deformations. A ductile type of Reinforced Concrete (RC) shear wall was investigated for a prototype 10-storey office building in the seismic design scenario of western Canada. The wall was designed according to the current Canadian design standards as conventional deformed steel-reinforced concrete shear wall. The resulting cross-section was used to define the geometry and reinforcement layout of equivalent hybrid SMA-steel RC wall. Full-scale 2-D Finite Element (FE) models of the walls were developed and subjected to nonlinear reverse cyclic analyses. Similarities in cross-section permitted a reliable comparison and assessment of the post-loading condition, including displacement capacity and drift, damage, residual displacement, and energy dissipation. The observed response of the hybrid SMA-steel wall, when compared to that of the steel-reinforced wall, indicated similar lateral capacity, slightly lower energy dissipation, and superior restoring capacity. In general, the introduction of Ni-Ti bars in the plastic hinge region of shear walls showed potential to optimize the seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings, controlling residual deformations and thereby reducing damage to structural elements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207