Effect of soil conditions on the response of reinforced concrete tall structures to near‐fault earthquakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Characteristics of near‐fault earthquakes (NFE) are particularly different from that of the far‐field ones. Far‐field ground motions are characterized by low peak ground acceleration (PGA) and high frequency, whereas near‐fault ground motions have a high peak ground velocity (PGV) and long period pulse. Several recent earthquakes, e.g. 1992 Landers, 1994 Northridge, 1995 Kobe, and 1999 Chichi earthquake events, have caused substantial damage to near‐fault flexible structures. The nonlinear dynamic behaviour of tall reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures subjected to NFE records is influenced by the characteristics of the foundation soil. The assumption of a fixed‐base model for this type of structure might not adequately represent their seismic response. Therefore, the seismic performance evaluation analysis should take into account the soil–structure interaction (SSI). In this study, the seismic performance of a 20‐storey and a 6‐storey RC frame structures with fixed‐base and flexible‐base conditions is evaluated. The characteristics of the flexible‐base models cover four types of soils, namely, soft soil, medium soil, stiff soil and a rock soil, as classified by the International Building Code. A set of 13 near‐fault acceleration time histories recorded on the four types of soil from major earthquake events is selected for the analysis. Three criteria for scaling the records were considered, namely, same maximum spectral acceleration, same spectral acceleration at fundamental period of fixed‐base model, and same spectral acceleration at fundamental period of flexible‐base model. The analysis evaluates the effect of SSI on the dynamic behaviour by comparing the response of the flexible‐base model to the fixed‐base model of the structure when subjected to different earthquake records on a specific soil type. It is concluded that SSI effects could vary significantly according to the characteristics of the NFE record, the scaling criterion and the seismic performance indicator representing the SSI. This observation is valid for tall and low‐rise structures. Copyright © 2007 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".