Influence of Near-Fault Ground Motions on the Response of Base-Isolated Reinforced Concrete Buildings considering Seismic Pounding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance of base-isolated buildings subjected to near-fault ground motions containing long-period pulses is of increasing concern, because these ground motions have the potential to impose large seismic demands on structures. A review of previous studies on the performance evaluation of base-isolated reinforced concrete (RC) buildings under near-fault ground motions shows that these studies lack in the consideration of seismic pounding and the use of lower bound and upper bound values of isolator properties according to the current state of practice. Accordingly, in this study the performance of a typical four-story base-isolated RC building is evaluated using a three-dimensional nonlinear finite element model, considering bounding values of isolator properties, to investigate the influences of (i) pulse-like nature of near-fault ground motions and (ii) seismic pounding with retaining walls at the base. Two sets of ground motions containing 14 far-fault non-pulse-like ground motions and 14 near-fault pulse-like ground motions, representing the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCE R ), are used. It is found that the response indicators of the building under near-fault motions are significantly larger than those under far-fault motions. Analysis results reveal that the building response indicators are significantly increased due to seismic pounding. Nonetheless, if a bounding analysis is conducted, consideration of seismic pounding in the analysis does not have appreciable consequences on the prediction of damage to structural elements and drift-sensitive nonstructural components, while dramatic increase in floor accelerations due to pounding is critical for acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".