MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320264209 · doi:10.1061/40975(318)127

Physical and Numerical Modeling of Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction

2008· article· en· W2320264209 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. H. T. Rayhani, M. Hesham El Naggar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentrifugeAccelerationGeotechnical engineeringLayeringNonlinear systemGeologyFoundation (evidence)Soil structure interactionStructural engineeringEngineeringFinite element methodPhysicsClassical mechanicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A numerical model was developed to simulate the response of two instrumented, centrifuge model tests on soft clay. The centrifuge tests consist of a rigid containment to simulate the behavior of rectangular ten-storey buildings on 30 m uniform and layered soft soils. Each test model was subjected to several earthquake- like shaking events i.e. scaled versions of an artificial western Canada earthquake and the Port Island ground motion recorded during the 1995 Kobe Earthquake at a centrifugal acceleration level of 80g. The centrifuge model was simulated with the 3-D finite-difference-based Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC) program. The results predicted with the use of nonlinear elastic—plastic models for the soil are shown to be in good agreement with measured acceleration, soil response, and structural behaviour. Numerical results were used to study the effect of soil layering and soil-structure interaction on foundation input 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207