Effect of foundation flexibility on the across-wind response of reinforced concrete chimneys with free-standing liners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chimneys with free-standing liners are often analyzed as fixed base cantilever beams, ignoring the effect of soil-structure interaction on their response. However, soil-structure interaction influences the dynamic response of chimneys in two ways: it alters the natural frequencies, damping ratios, and mode shapes, and it results in coupling of the response of the liner and the shell. In this analysis, the stack was modelled as a continuous cantilever beam with distributed stiffness and mass supported by a flexible foundation. It was found that the relative shell-liner deflection for the flexible foundation case was approximately 35% higher than that for the fixed base case. This increase in deflection may exceed design tolerances for a chimney cap and may lead to liner and (or) shell damage if combined with other adverse conditions such as aerodynamic interference effects with other chimneys. The base forces in the shell decrease significantly due to the foundation flexibility, with values as low as 50% of those of the fixed case. The base forces in the liner were approximately 35% of shell base forces for the fixed base case. These forces are not accounted for in the design of liners using the fixed base assumption. It was concluded that the effects of the foundation flexibility are significant and must be included in the analysis of chimneys with free-standing liners. This is especially true for chimneys in regions with low seismic activity, since the design of the liner would be based on minimal lateral forces.Key words: soil-structure interaction, chimneys, dynamic response, wind.
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".