Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of seismic response of taller reinforced concrete shear walls with rocking foundations is carried out on the example of a 20-storey building.The building is framed by simple ductile concrete shear and located in Montreal, Canada.The location is representative of Eastern North American seismic conditions characterized by high-frequency ground motions that can exemplify the impact of higher modes on the response.The walls are designed and detailed according to the Canadian design provisions for ductile shear walls.Different options for the foundation design are considered to examine the effect of foundation size on the type of structural response.Two-dimensional nonlinear time history analyses of the wallfoundation system were performed using the OpenSees program for simulated ground motions compatible with the design spectrum.Wall inelastic behaviour and the nonlinear soil response were both represented in the model.Soil-structure interaction and uplift due to overturning are modeled using the beam-on-nonlinear-Winkler-foundation concept.The overturning moments, base shears and roof displacements are compared to those obtained assuming a fixed-base condition to quantify the impact of rocking on the superstructure.The usefulness of rocking to mitigate higher-mode effects is also evaluated.The foundation displacements and stresses in the soil are examined to assess the consequences of the rocking behaviour on the global structural response.The analyses show that the code compliant design exhibited yielding at the wall base and rocking.Reduction of foundation size increased the rocking response and eliminated the inelastic response in the superstructure.Rocking reduced the force demand on the superstructure without significantly increasing the displacements, but some permanent deformations and high bearing pressures developed in the soil under the foundation edges.Rocking did not reduce the impact of higher modes on the response.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".