Question 1: Lintel Configuration:
In the PDF documents describing the specimen setup, the lintels above the window openings appear to be modeled as homogeneous solid parts. However, in the test video, the lintels seem to be constructed from the same individual blocks as the walls, with visible vertical and horizontal joints. Could you please confirm which representation reflects the actual test specimen used in the blind prediction? If the video reflects the accurate configuration, would it be possible to provide a high-resolution image that clearly shows the joint layout in both lintels?
- Answer: Please use the geometry in the provided drawings and 3D model.
As mentioned in the video caption and the Rules document, this video does not correspond to the exact test specimen. This video belongs to an earlier feasibility study, which is described in this conference paper: https://doi.org/10.53243/ACPMG2024-69. Therefore, this video should not be used as reference for any modeling in this Blind Prediction Contest.
Question 2: Instrumentation Details:
In the test video, various instruments appear to be attached to different regions of the specimen.
a. Could you please specify the positions and types of these instruments (e.g., accelerometers or other sensors)? This would help me align output points in my numerical model for more direct comparison during the post-diction phase.
b. Additionally, if available, could you provide the weights or masses of each sensor? Given the scaled-down nature of the structure, even small weights may influence the dynamic behavior, and I would like to account for this in my models.
- Answer: It is reiterated that this video does not correspond to the exact test specimen, as mentioned in the video caption and the Rules document. However, answers are provided to the two questions as follows:
a. During testing, two instrumentation layouts were adopted, as shown in the figure below. The refined instrumentation layout (Layout 2, in the figure below) was used only in specimens: House 17, House 18, House 19, House 20, and House 24. Instrumentation Layout 1 was used for the rest of the specimens. Out-of-plane (perpendicular to the wall) and in-plane (in the same plane) accelerometers were used to measure accelerations.
b. Mass of in-plane accelerometer (including attachment to the specimen) = 1.77 grams Mass of out-of-plane accelerometer (including attachment to the specimen) = 2.59 grams. 
Question 3: Definition of Out-of-Plane Displacement of Point A:
The competition instructions specify that the maximum OOP displacement of Point A (top of the North wall) should be reported, but the use of the term "absolute" in the Excel file is unclear. Could you please clarify whether the requested displacement refers to: (a) The OOP displacement of Point A relative to the shake table (i.e., wall deformation only), or (b) The total displacement of Point A (i.e., shake table movement plus wall deformation)?
- Answer: The out-of-plane displacement of point A relative to the shake table is the quantity that should be reported.
The term 'absolute' refers to the magnitude of the displacement regardless of its direction (positive or negative), i.e. the absolute value of the peak out-of-plane displacement of Point A relative to the shake table is the sought quantity.
Question 4: Point A OOP Displacement to be Reported in the Event of Collapse:
If the specimen collapses including falling of the top part of the North wall under a loading signal, how should the displacement of Point A be reported? Specifically, should we report the maximum displacement up until a moment just before collapse, or is there a different protocol for this case?
- Answer: In the event of the North wall collapse, the displacement of Point A will not be considered in developing the CDF.
The contestants are welcome to report the maximum displacement up until a moment just before collapse, if they would like that. If maximum displacement is reported in such situations, please make a note in the Submission Excel document.
Question 5: Loading Direction
Regarding the acceleration input data, the PDF indicates that the shaking direction aligns with the North–South axis. However, it is not clear which end corresponds to the positive direction. Could you please confirm whether positive acceleration values represent motion from South to North, or vice versa?
- Answer: Positive accelerations, in the given data, represent moving from North to South.
Question 6: Shear-Compression Component Testing
In the shear-compression component testing, do the stated pre-compression values (0.06 MPa and 0.3 MPa) refer solely to the force applied by the top jacks, or do they also account for the self-weight of the beams placed on top of the walls?
- Answer: The compression forces were measured using two triaxial loadcells below the specimen, so they account for the self-weight of the beams placed on top of the walls.
Question 7: Shear-Compression Component Testing
In the shear-compression component testing, how are the walls connected to the top beams and the base? Are these interfaces constructed using standard mortar, or was a specific high-strength material or connection method employed?
- Answer:
Top and bottom bearings from the same material, as the wall itself, were 3D-printed along with the wall, as shown in the figure below.
At the bottom end, the walls were fixed to the steel plate using a U-shaped shoe that clamped/confined the specimen from the sides, similar to the method discussed in this paper:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2024.117665.
Additionally, metal clamps were used to fix the specimen, through clamping the bottom bearing, to the steel plate.
At the top end, only steel plates, that apply the horizontal displacement to the walls, were used, allowing rotation at the top end.
Figure: 3D printed wall specimen for the shear-compression test including the top and bottom bearings.
Question 8: Shear-Compression Component Testing
In the shear-compression component testing, could you clarify the boundary conditions at the top of the walls? Specifically, is rotation about the out-of-plane axis permitted (i.e., cantilever behavior), or is it restrained (i.e., double-clamped condition)?
- Answer: Rotation about the out-of-plane axis at the top of the wall was allowed.
Question 9: Shear-Compression Component Testing
In case the shear walls are tested in cantilever conditions, I would like to ask the vertical distance between the point of horizontal load application (centerline of the horizontal actuator) and the top edge of the walls.
- Answer: The vertical distance between centerline of the horizontal actuator and the top edge of the walls (the top edge of the top bearing, below Figure) was 320mm.
Figure: 3D printed wall specimen for the shear-compression test including the top and bottom bearings.