Coupled Foundation-Superstructure Analysis and Influence of Building Stiffness on Foundation Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a simple method to include superstructure stiffness in foundation analyses. The method involves extracting a small "condensed structural matrix" from finite element models of the superstructure, which can then be incorporated into pile group or piled raft analyses using common approaches such as elastic continuum or load transfer methods. The matrix condensation method directly couples structural and geotechnical analyses, and eliminates the need for iterative analyses between structural and geotechnical engineers. Effectiveness of the approach is illustrated through analyses of several buildings designed with a typical floor plan but with varying heights. The parametric study illustrates that superstructure stiffness can have a significant influence on foundation settlement estimates, and the stiffening effects are dominated by the lower stories of the superstructure. The proposed method aims to bridge the gap between structural and geotechnical analyses. Also, being a computationally simple and accurate approach, it is applicable to parametric or optimization studies that would otherwise involve large amounts of analyses.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".