Comparison of one and three dimensional site response analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zemin davranış analizleri, anakayada meydana gelen kuvvetli yer hareketlerinin anakaya üzerinde bulunan yerel zeminler tarafından nasıl etkilendiğinin belirlenmesi esasına dayanmaktadır.Yerel zemin tepkisi, gerçekte üç boyutlu olan sistemin basitleştirilmiş bir boyutlu doğrusal analizler sonucunda belirlenmesine rağmen, küçük şekil değiştirmelerde plastik davranış sergileyen zeminin doğrusal olmayan davranışını temsil etmede yetersiz kalmaktadır.Eşdeğer doğrusal analiz yöntemi, zeminin doğrusal olmayan davranışını temsil etmek için diğer yöntemler (doğrusal ya da doğrusal olmayan) arasında daha yaygın bir şekilde kullanılmaktadır.Ancak, zemin ortamının her üç boyutta değişkenlik gösterdiği veya yatay tabakalardan oluşmadığı ve ayrıca özellikle yapı-zemin etkileşimi yapılacağı durumlarda iki veya üç boyutlu analizlere ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır.Bu çalışmada, üç boyutlu modelleme stratejileri üzerinde durulmakta ve yansıtmayan sınır eleman boyları, zeminin (sistemin) boyutları, sonlu eleman boyutu ve sönüm için seçilen frekans aralığının üç boyutlu sistemin tepkisi üzerindeki etkileri araştırılmaktadır.Bir boyutlu ve üç boyutlu zemin davranış analiz sonuçları maksimum yer ivmesi, maksimum deplasman ve tepki spektrumu dikkate alınarak literatürdeki çalışmalarla karşılaştırılmaktadır.Yapılan kıyaslamalar sonucunda, doğru bir şekilde oluşturulan üç boyutlu modelin, bir boyutlu analizlerin kullanılamayacağı durumlarda zemin davranışını belirlemede uygulanabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır.Site response analysis is based on determining how strong ground motions occurring in bedrock are affected by local soils above the bedrock.Although the local ground response is determined as a result of simplified one-dimensional linear analysis of the system, which is actually three-dimensional, it is insufficient to represent the nonlinear behavior of soil which exhibiting plastic behavior under small deformations.The equivalent linear analysis method is more commonly used among other methods (linear or non-linear) to represent the nonlinear behavior of the soil.However, two or three dimensional analyzes are required in cases where the soil environment varies in all three dimensions or does not consist of horizontal layers, and especially when soil-structure interaction will be applied.In this study, threedimensional modeling strategies are dwelled on and the effects of nonreflective boundary element lengths, dimensions of the soil (system), finite element size and the frequency range selected for damping on the response of the three-dimensional system are investigated.Onedimensional and three-dimensional soil behavior analysis results are compared with the studies in the literature in terms of the maximum ground acceleration, maximum displacement and response spectrum.As a result of the comparisons, it is revealed that the correctly generated three-dimensional model can be applied in determining the ground behavior in cases where one-dimensional analysis cannot be used.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".