Effective flexural stiffness for linear seismic analysis of concrete walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A trilinear bending moment – curvature model is used to develop a general method for determining the effective flexural stiffness of concrete walls for use in linear seismic analysis. The method accounts for the initial section stiffness E c I g prior to cracking and the retention of initial stiffness after cracking due to axial compression from gravity loads closing cracks. Accounting for the initial stiffness is particularly important for typical high-rise concrete walls, which have significant compression and low percentages of vertical reinforcement. The effective flexural stiffness is determined from the slope of the elastic portion of an equivalent elastic-plastic load–deflection curve that has the same area under the curve as the actual nonlinear relationship. The general method requires information about the vertical reinforcement and strength of the wall. Simplified expressions are proposed to estimate the effective flexural stiffness based only on the axial compression near the base of the wall. Separate expressions for upper- and lower-bound effective stiffness establish the range of possible values, and this is less than the variation of recommendations in the literature on how much to reduce the flexural stiffness of concrete walls to account for cracking.Key words: displacement, flexure, reinforced concrete, seismic analysis, stiffness, structural walls.
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) | 0.001 | 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".