MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409767732 · doi:10.5592/co/3crocee.2025.125

THE EFFECTS OF SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ON THE SEISMIC DESIGN OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS FOR EBFs

2025· article· en· W4409767732 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sanda Koboevic, Bardia Ramin Afshar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSeismic analysisShallow foundationGeologyEnvironmental scienceGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Past research has demonstrated that foundation rocking, can reduce demands on the superstructure by dissipating a portion of earthquake energy through soil-structure interaction (SSI). Canadian seismic provisions allow two approaches for foundation design: capacity-protected (CP) and non-capacity-protected (NCP). CP foundations are designed to fully develop the resistance of the seismic force-resisting system (SFRS), thereby concentrating inelastic activity within the superstructure. In contrast, NCP foundations are designed to develop only a partial capacity of the SFRS, leading to foundation uplift and rotation, which limit the forces transmitted to the superstructure. In practice, Canadian design often results in large foundations for steel frame buildings, significantly increasing construction costs and potentially favoring alternative structural materials. Previous studies on concentrically braced frames have shown that, on competent soils, such large foundations may not be necessary, and satisfactory performance can be achieved even without considering frame overstrength or capacity design. To further validate the applicability of Canadian seismic provisions for foundation design, this study investigates 3- and 8-storey steel buildings with eccentrically braced frames located in Vancouver, Canada. Two site classes (C and E) were considered. Foundation designs followed Canadian seismic design standards (NBCC 2020 and CSA A23.3-19), with an additional comparison to a design approach without capacity considerations, similar to US practice. Non-linear time history analyses were conducted using the STKO/OpenSees platform, incorporating both inelastic frame behavior and nonlinear soil response. The results indicate that for foundations on competent soil (site class C), even without applying capacity design principles, the inter-storey drift and soil capacity limits were satisfied. This design approach resulted in smaller foundations and reduced ductility demands on the superstructure."

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationFrench-language works237,207