MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963500603 · doi:10.1139/l01-014

Effect of foundation flexibility on seismic response of reinforced concrete TV-towers

2001· article· en· W1963500603 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amir M. Halabian, M. Hesham El Naggar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Centre
KeywordsBending momentFoundation (evidence)Flexibility (engineering)Structural engineeringSoil structure interactionGeotechnical engineeringFinite element methodShear forceShear (geology)Seismic analysisNatural frequencyEngineeringBendingGeologyMathematicsVibration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The analysis of tall reinforced concrete TV-towers is commonly simplified by assuming a fixed base and ignoring the effect of soil–structure interaction. However, the foundation flexibility affects the dynamic characteristics of tall structures and influences their dynamic behaviour. To design these towers for dynamic loading, the fundamental natural periods, base bending moment, and base shear force as the most important parameters are needed and must be evaluated properly. In the current study, a finite element formulation for the response analysis of TV-towers subjected to earthquake ground motion accounting for soil–structure interaction is presented. The effects of foundation flexibility on the dynamic behaviour of TV-towers were evaluated for two different types of foundation, shallow footing and deep foundation, and various soil profiles. A typical example for these towers is analysed and the results for a range of soil dynamic parameters are presented. It was found that the foundation flexibility increases the natural periods, alters the natural mode shapes, and decreases the base bending moment. It was also concluded that the effect of soil–structure interaction may have a large effect on the base shear of the tower and should be considered in the analysis, especially for the design of horizontal reinforcement.Key words: soil–structure interaction, TV-towers, natural period, base forces, foundation flexibility.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.203 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207