High-rise building subjected to excessive settlement of its foundation: a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Differential settlement between foundations’ elements induces additional stresses in the structural elements. In general, the amount of settlement that a structure can undergo without distress is large, provided that the structure settles uniformly. However, based on the fact that the soil under the foundation may not be uniform in nature and the loads transferred from the superstructure to the foundation are variable, differential settlements between the foundation elements are expected. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the stresses induced in a typical ten-storey reinforced concrete building subjected to excessive differential settlement. Design/methodology/approach In this investigation, excessive differential settlement up to 75 mm is assigned to the center column on the ground floor that represents the most critical case. A three-dimensional finite element model is developed to perform structural analysis using the software SAP2000, and the nonlinear static pushover analysis is performed. Findings The results of this study show that the building behaves elastically up to 25 mm of differential settlement between its foundation elements, which agrees well with the recommendation given in design manuals. Beyond this value, significant inelastic response is observed in the lower floors and decreases gradually in the higher floors and accordingly, some members have consumed the factor of safety and are in the verge of failure. Originality/value Based on the results of this study, recommendations are made for better communication between the structure and the geotechnical engineers to either limit the differential settlements or incorporate these additional stresses during the design stage of the building. Furthermore, the results of the study can be used to recommend to building codes or design manuals to add a load component due to the anticipated differential settlements of the foundation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".