Seismic soil–structure interaction in buildings on stiff clay with embedded basement stories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasingly popular performance-based design approach requires that soil–structure interaction (SSI) analysis become an integral part of the seismic evaluation. This is particularly important for structures with substantial embedment. The primary objectives of this study are twofold: (i) evaluate the SSI effects for buildings with a basement and (ii) evaluate the ability of two analytical methods to account for SSI effects in seismic design — an analytical solution for kinematic SSI and a nonlinear finite element model. Scaled model shaking table tests were performed on a model building with an embedded basement founded in a synthetic stiff clay deposit enclosed in a laminar soil container. The model structure used in this study comprised a simple single-degree-of-freedom structure with a modular box foundation designed to permit consideration of structures with different basement embedment depths. The experimental results showed that the ratio of effective period of the soil–structure system to that of the structure ([Formula: see text]) decreased for the long-period structure and increased for the short-period structure, with increasing embedment. The results confirm the ability of the analytical techniques to predict with reasonable accuracy the SSI effects for buildings with embedded parts.
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) | 0.001 | 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".