Nonlinear seismic response of reinforced concrete pedestals in elevated water tanks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elevated water tanks are employed in water distribution facilities in order to provide storage and necessary pressure in water network systems. These structures have demonstrated poor seismic performance in the past earthquakes. In this study, a finite element method is employed for investigating the nonlinear seismic response of reinforced concrete (RC) pedestal in elevated water tanks. A combination of the most commonly constructed tank sizes and pedestal heights in industry are developed and investigated. Pushover analysis is performed in order to construct the pushover curves, establish the overstrength and ductility factor, and evaluate the effect of various parameters such as fundamental period and tank size on the seismic response factors of elevated water tanks. Furthermore, a probabilistic method is implemented to verify the seismic performance and response modification factor of elevated water tanks. The effect of wall openings in the seismic response characteristics of elevated water tanks is investigated as well. Finally, the effect of axial compression on shear strength of RC pedestals is evaluated and compared to nominal shear strength from current guideline and standards. The results of the study show that the tank size, pedestal height, fundamental period, and pedestal height to diameter ratio, could significantly affect the overstrength and ductility factor of RC pedestals. The nonlinear dynamic analysis results reveal that under the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) intensity, light and medium size tank models do not experience significant damages. However, heavy tank size models experience more damage in comparison with light and medium tank sizes. This study shows that the current code response modification factor values are appropriate for light and medium tank sizes; however they need to be modified for heavy tank sizes. The results of this study also reveal that if the pedestal wall openings are designed based on current design guidelines, then nearly identical nonlinear seismic response behaviour is expected from the pedestals with and without openings. Finally, it is shown that the pedestal maximum shear strength calculated by finite element method for the full tank state is higher than the nominal shear strength determined based on the current design guidelines compared to the nominal shear strength from current guideline and standards.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".