MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Numerical Modeling of Seismic Response of Rigid Foundation on Soft Soil

2008· article· en· W2165609548 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Geomechanics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentrifugeEmbedmentGeotechnical engineeringGeologyFoundation (evidence)AccelerationNonlinear systemLayeringSoil structure interactionStructural engineeringEngineeringFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A numerical model was developed to simulate the response of two instrumented, centrifuge model tests on soft clay and to investigate the factors that affect the seismic ground response. The centrifuge tests simulated the behavior of a rectangular building on 30m uniform and layered soft soils. Each test model was subjected to several earthquakelike shaking events at a centrifugal acceleration level of 80g. The applied loading involved scaled versions of an artificial western Canada earthquake and the Port Island ground motion recorded during the 1995 Kobe Earthquake. The centrifuge model was simulated with the three-dimensional finite-difference-based fast Lagrangian analysis of continua program. The results predicted with the use of nonlinear elastic–plastic model for the soil are shown to be in good agreement with measured acceleration, soil response, and structural behavior. The validated model was used to study the effect of soil layering, depth, soil–structure interaction, and embedment effects on foundation motion.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.213 · 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