MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238130300 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14648802.v1

Seismic response of reinforced concrete elevated water towers.

2021· preprint· en· W4238130300 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aren Nazari

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodStructural engineeringTowerSeismic loadingDuctility (Earth science)Geotechnical engineeringEngineeringGeologyComputer scienceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern composite elevated storage tanks were developed in late 1970's in response to increasing demand for a reliable, economical and low-maintenance water storage system in Canada and the U.S. The popularity of composite elevated water towers rose tremendously in the last 30 years, as the new type of construction offered many advantages over traditional elevated water storage tanks. Despite the increasing rate of construction, the performance of this type of structure under ground motions is not fully understood. During the recent earthquake of Bhuj 2001, many shaft staging elevated water towers experienced severe damages, signifying the lack of considerable ductility, redundancy and energy dissipation in the system. This thesis investigates the current approach to the design of shaft staging elevated towers, and also summarizes a comprehensive literature review of structural theories, latest research and studies. The response of a selected concrete shaft staging elevated tower, designed according to the currant [sic] practice and subjected to gradually increasing lateral load was investigated through a non-linear static finite element analysis. Additionally, the seismic performance of the structure during four different ground motions with various peak ground accelerations was studied through several time-history non-linear finite element analyses. The results of static and dynamic finite element analyses were used to evaluate and establish the response modification factor used for design of these types of structures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207