Talk:Seismic analysis

message: Can the author assure readers that Zienkiewicz and Irons were not earlier than Clough in the development of finite element analysis? 209.167.89.139 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that finite element theory was indeed developed in the UK (but I don't have the references), which is why I wrote that Berkeley was an early base. However, the references I gave state that the name was coined by Ray Clough. --Muchado 04:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finite Elements 

message: I have proposed merges to this article from
*
*
Both articles are approximately stub-length, and both appear to include only content which could comfortably fit within the purview of this article.
A word of caution is in order.  Both articles were created by (and almost exclusively edited by) an editor who has had a number of problems with contributing material to Wikipedia plagiarized from both public domain and copyrighted sources.  He has also repeatedly added links to his own webpages and publications.  (He is currently indefinitely blocked, for these and other problems.)  
Anyone who does carry out these merges should watch for content which is plagiarized or promotional in nature.  (Check sources for their relevance or importance in the field.)  It may even be that there isn't anything worthwhile to merge; in that case a simple redirection of the above article titles here would be appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merges 

message: I agree that some merging should occur between this article and the ones cited above. Still, performance is considered as a wider (and more recent) term than just response analysis. It could be considered a super-set although I believe the issue is not yet fully decided. Perhaps a better short-term title for this page is "Seismic structural analysis" that is definitely more descriptive and scientifically more accurate that simply "seismic analysis". 
Divamva (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merges and Title change 

message: Googling some suspicious-looking passages from the body of the article leads me to have some serious concerns about the source of some of the text in this article.
This PDF (2.6 MB) (a research project by Kerstin Lang, reportedly published in 2002) contains the sections
*Linear static procedures
*Linear dynamic procedures
*Nonlinear static procedures
*Nonlinear dynamic procedures
in Section 2.6: Detailed analysis procedures (page 24 of the PDF, numbered page 14).
The Wikipedia article (started in April 2005) contains the sections (in order)
*Linear Dynamic Analysis
*Non-linear Static Analysis
*Non-linear Dynamic Analysis
The current section on linear dynamic analysis is a direct copy-and-paste of most of the linear dynamic procedures section of Lang's paper.  The other sections may be okay, but I haven't checked this article's history of fine-tooth-combed those other sections.
Investigation and cleanup by subject matter experts is invited and encouraged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the last three sections have been lifted from somewhere.  I've never really heard of these things being done.  Zeizmic (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of text problem 

message: The section concerning non-linear dynamic analysis is lacking references. Modal analysis is not valid anymore in nonlinear analysis since it is based on superposition. Please correct it or add reference.
It might be possible to calculate the eigenvalues in the deformed state and use those to calculate the modal response, but usually the response of the structure is calculated by solving the equation of motion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.169.18.110 (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Linear Modal Analysis?