Seismic force demand on ductile reinforced concrete shear walls subjected to western North American ground motions: Part 1 — parametric study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A parametric study of regular ductile reinforced concrete (RC) cantilever walls designed with the 2010 National building code of Canada and the 2004 Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standard A23.3 for Vancouver is performed to investigate the influence of the following parameters on the higher mode amplification effects, and hence on the seismic force demand: number of storeys, fundamental lateral period (T), site class, wall aspect ratio, wall cross-section, and wall base flexural overstrength (γ w ). The study is based on inelastic time-history analyses performed with a multilayer beam model and a smeared membrane model accounting for inelastic shear–flexure–axial interaction. The main conclusions are that (i) T and γ w are the studied parameters affecting the most dynamic shear amplification and seismic force demand, (ii) the 2004 CSA standard A23.3 capacity design methods are inadequate, and (iii) a single plastic hinge design may be inadequate and unsafe for regular ductile RC walls with γ w < 2.0.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".