MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W190744383

An Improved Description of the Seismic Response of Sites with High Plasticity Soils, Organic Clays, and Deep Soft Soil Deposits

2014· article· en· W190744383 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian Carlton

Notice bibliographique

RevueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueSeismic Performance and Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSoil waterBedrockGeologyGeotechnical engineeringSoil scienceGeomorphology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Near surface soils can greatly influence the amplitude, duration, and frequency content of ground motions. The amount of their influence depends on many factors, such as the geometry and engineering properties of the soils and underlying bedrock, as well as the earthquake source mechanism and travel path. Building codes such as the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) define six site categories for seismic design of structures, which are based on the sites defined by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). Site categories A, B, C, D, and E are defined by the time averaged shear wave velocity over the top 30 meters of the soil deposit. Site category F is defined as sites that include liquefiable or sensitive soils, as well as sites with more than 3 meters (10 ft) of peat or highly organic clays, more than 7.5 meters (25 ft) of soil with PI > 75, and more than 37 meters (120 ft) of soft to medium stiff clays. The IBC specifies simplified procedures to calculate design spectra for NEHRP sites A through E, and requires a site specific investigation for NEHRP F sites. However, established procedures for performing the required site specific investigations for NEHRP F sites are limited.The objective of this research is to develop a simplified procedure to estimate design spectra for non-liquefiable NEHRP F sites, specifically sites with organic soils, highly plastic soils, and deep soft soil deposits. The results from this research will directly affect US practice by developing much needed guidelines in this area. There is little empirical data on the seismic response of non-liquefiable NEHRP F sites. As a result, this study focused on generating data from site response analyses. To capture the variability of ground motions, this study selected five base case scenarios according to tectonic environments and representative cases encountered in common US practice. Suites of ground motions for each scenario were created by collecting ground motions from online databases. Some of the ground motions were scaled and others were spectrally matched to their respective target response spectra. Fifteen different NEHRP E and F sites were created for the site response analyses. Seven of the sites are based on actual sites from the San Francisco Bay Area, New York City, Ottawa, Canada, Guayaquil, Ecuador, and Hokkaido, Japan. The other eight sites are variations of the seven base case sites. This study conducted a total of 14,541 site response analyses using a well documented site response analysis program.This study then developed a simplified model to estimate response spectra for non-liquefiable NEHRP F sites. The simplified model was developed in two stages. In the first stage, the results for each site were regressed separately against the ground motion intensity to estimate the effect of the ground motion scenario. In the second stage, the site specific coefficients calculated from the first stage were regressed against site properties to determine their site dependence. These two parts were then combined to form the final model. The simplified model was validated against a separate database than the one used to develop it. This validation database consisted of 24 effective stress nonlinear site response analyses for three sites and eight ground motion scenarios. The simplified model developed in this study does not replace a site response analysis, but rather augments it. It is hoped that the results of this dissertation will help practicing engineers gain a better understanding of their site before conducting site response analyses

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,344
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,642

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,002
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,163
Écart entre enseignants0,158 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations25
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Même sujetSeismic Performance and AnalysisTravaux en français237 207