MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091579911 · doi:10.1139/t99-125

Effect of foundation flexibility on the across-wind response of reinforced concrete chimneys with free-standing liners

2000· article· en· W2091579911 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringDeflection (physics)CantileverChimney (locomotive)StiffnessEngineeringFoundation (evidence)Geotechnical engineeringSoil structure interactionFinite element methodPhysicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it