The Effects of 2-D Bedrock Profile on Site Specific Seismic Amplifications in Leda Clay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of the research is to understand the significance of the effects of the bedrock profile on seismic amplifications in soft soil deposits.Inclined soil-bedrock interfaces lead to simultaneous primary and secondary wave loading on soils, and a numerical study has been undertaken to assess whether ignoring them may lead to design deficiencies.The response of a site in Orleans with a deep Leda clay deposit at the center, but with a concaved bedrock profile, leading to a soft soil-deposit "valley", is evaluated using 2-D numerical analysis.The seismic response of Leda clay on a hypothetical horizontal bedrock (representing conventional practice), and two different natural bedrock basins has been studied.The National building code of Canada (NBCC 2015) design spectra compatible earthquake shaking was considered.The comparisons between the conventional practice and the response of the 2-D basin demonstrate that assessment of the cyclic loading intensity is significantly affected by the basin shape.Higher cyclic stress ratio (CSR) values are realized in the 2-D analysis due to basin geometry, and the magnitude of the CSR is dependent on the configuration of the basin.This indicates that ignoring basin geometry effects might lead to unsafe liquefaction susceptibility assessments.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".