Seismic isolation of buildings with sliding concave foundation (SCF)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, a new base isolation system, namely the sliding concave foundation (SCF), is introduced and the behaviour of the buildings using such a system is theoretically investigated. A building supported on the new system behaves like a compound pendulum during seismic excitation. The pendulum behaviour accompanied by the large radius of foundation curvature shifts the fundamental period of the system to a high value (e.g. more than 8sec), in a frequency range where none of the previously recorded earthquakes had considerable energy. This results in a large decrease in the structural responses. Since small friction forces are essential on the contact surfaces, PTFE sheets can be used as sliding surfaces. Although the pure frictional sliding systems have the same efficiency as the SCF, in reducing the responses of the superstructure, the main advantage of the new system is a significant decrease in sliding displacement. The performance of the SCF subjected to a number of harmonic and non‐harmonic base excitations is studied and its ability to reduce the structural responses is examined. Some numerical examples are solved for a single‐degree‐of‐freedom (SDOF) structure and the responses are compared with the responses of the same SDOF structure on a fixed base or a pure frictional sliding support system. The comparisons confirm the effectiveness of the new system. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".