Simplified BNWF model for nonlinear seismic response analysis of offshore piles with nonlinear input ground motion analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The seismic response of pile-supported offshore structures is strongly affected by the nonlinear behavior of the supporting piles. Nonlinear response of the pile foundation is the most important source of potential nonlinearity in the dynamic response of offshore platforms to earthquake excitations. It is often necessary to perform a dynamic analysis of offshore platforms that accounts for soil nonlinearity, discontinuity conditions at pilesoil interfaces, energy dissipation through soil radiation damping, and structural nonlinear behaviors of piles. In this paper, an attempt is made to develop an inexpensive and practical procedure, compatible with readily available structural analysis software, for estimating the lateral response of flexible piles embedded in layered soil deposits subjected to seismic loading. In the proposed model a beam on nonlinear Winkler foundation (BNWF) approach, consisting of simple nonlinear springs, dashpots, and contact elements, is used. This model was incorporated into a finite element program, ANSYS, which was used to compute the response of laterally excited piles. A nonlinear approach was used for seismic free-field ground motion analysis. The computed responses compared well with the centrifuge test results. This paper deals with the effects of free-field ground motion analysis on nonlinear seismic behavior of embedded piles. Different parts of a BNWF model, together with quantitative and qualitative findings and conclusions for dynamic nonlinear response of offshore piles, are discussed and addressed in detail.Key words: nonlinear, seismic response, offshore piles, seismic pilesoil interaction, BNWF models.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".