Effect of the Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction on Rigid Transmission Line Towers Subjected to Wind and Impulse Loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transmission lines (TL) towers are traditionally analyzed assuming fixed base. However, this assumption is questionable as foundation is not rigid in most cases. In other fields, such as seismic engineering, it has been reported in the past that the foundation stiffness and damping affects the structural behavior while in interaction with the structure specifically under dynamic loads. In this paper, the soil-structure interaction (SSI) effect on transmission line (TL) behavior is studied. The soil is replaced by foundation impedance, a set of frequency dependent spring and dashpot. For this purpose, a parametric study on a simplified case is presented for two types of dynamic loads: wind load and impulse load supposed to represent the effect of the shock wake following the breakage of a conductor of ground wire. To complement this parametric study, a real case is used in the analysis. The behaviour of the foundation is determined with software FLAC with its foundation impedance. Two types of soil are used in the analysis: (i) cohesive soil; (ii) granular soil. The paper confirms that foundations can modify structural behaviour significantly.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".