Seismic Overstrength of Shear Walls in Parking Structures with Flexible Diaphragms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective in current design practice for parking structures is that energy is dissipated through the formation of plastic hinges at the base of shear walls while floor diaphragms remain elastic and are vertically supported by a combination of shear walls and gravity resisting columns. Unfortunately, this objective is not always achieved due to inaccuracies in current methods for calculating demands on shear walls and in calculating the capacity of shear walls (CitationIBC 2003, ACI code). When demands are overestimated and capacity underestimated, then diaphragm can fail prior to flexural yield of shear walls as was observed in several parking structures in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Eigenvalue and inelastic dynamic response analyses were performed in order to investigate the effects of diaphragm flexibility on wall responses and of wall overstrength on diaphragm responses. The elongated periods of parking structures due to diaphragm flexibility were found to significantly decrease seismic force demand on shear walls relative to what is calculated using codes of practice in which diaphragms are assumed to be rigid. This leads to the over design of shear walls, which further compounds the problem by preventing the flexural yielding of these walls and thereby driving inelastic response to diaphragms. Various degrees of diaphragm flexibility, shear wall layout, seismic zone, and the number of stories were considered in these analyses. Inelastic static pushover analyses were preformed to investigate the design and capacity evaluation of shear walls. The results illustrate that the shear capacity of walls may be close to twice that calculated by codes of practice. The largest overstrengths were observed in shear walls with low height-to-length ratios in which a significant portion of the lateral load was taken by direct strut action to the foundation and without placing demands on the longitudinal tension reinforcement in the shear walls. The article concludes that methods in codes of practice for calculating shear wall demands and capacities need to be improved if good seismic performance of parking structures is to be achieved.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".