STRATEGIES FOR SEISMIC DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS FOR STEEL BUILDING STRUCTURES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian provisions allow two alternatives for the seismic design of foundations: capacity-protected (CP) and not capacity-protected (NCP). CP foundations should develop the full resistance of seismic force resisting system (SFRS) and are favoured whenever possible. With such foundations the inelastic activity occurs predominantly in the superstructure, unexpectedly high seismic demands are better managed and the global system deformations are not increased significantly by foundation rotations. NCP foundations develop a partial capacity of the SFRS. Being weaker than the SFRS, such foundations uplift and rotate thus limiting the forces transmitted to the superstructure. Conversely, the foundation rotations increase displacements of the superstructure which must be considered in design. Canadian design practice shows that foundations of steel frame buildings are often large causing a significant increase in construction cost, which may lead to selection of alternative structural solutions built in different materials. Knowing that the design requirements were developed mainly considering the seismic behaviour of concrete shear walls, characterized by the development of a single plastic hinge at the base, it appears necessary to validate their applicability to steel braced frames that exhibit a distributed yielding mechanism, associated with much larger overstrength and higher capacity design forces on foundations. In this study, 3-storey steel buildings with X-type tension-compression bracing were designed for Vancouver, Canada, to examine different design strategies for foundation design. Two soil types were considered. The foundation design followed Canadian and US seismic design approaches. Non-linear time history analyses were then performed using the OpenSees program. The model included the inelastic frame behaviour and the nonlinear soil response. The forces imposed on foundations obtained from nonlinear time history analysis are compared with design predictions. The foundation displacements and stresses in the soil are also examined to assess the consequences of foundation flexibility on the global structural seismic 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".