Comparison of the Influence of Different Soil-Structure Interaction Models in a Five-Story Building on Soft Soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>A comparative analysis will be carried out on the influence that four soil-structure interaction models have on the seismic performance of a five-story dual building composed of frames, reinforced concrete walls and isolated footings type foundations, whose initial premise states that these foundations are completely embedded in the ground. The methodologies selected for the comparison will be the D. D. Barkan - O. A. Savinov model, the A. E. Sargsian model, the model proposed by the Russian Standard SNIP 2.02.05-87 and the model proposed by the FEMA P-2091 manual in its sixth chapter. The data obtained from different measurement indicators will be compared, such as structural drifts, fundamental period, base shear, axial forces acting on a critical column and moments in a critical beam. At the end of the analysis, it was concluded that the SSI model that provides results that are most in line with Peruvian reality without the need to exaggerate the results is the one proposed by the FEMA manual, which represents a good precedent in favor of including the phenomenon in the Peruvian regulations.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".