MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1924269279 · doi:10.1115/1.4031755

Fiber-Reinforced Elastomeric Bearings for Vibration Isolation

2015· article· en· W1924269279 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of vibration and acoustics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElastomerMaterials scienceStiffnessBearing (navigation)Structural engineeringVibration isolationVibrationFiberReinforcementExtensibilityComposite materialComputer scienceEngineeringAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fiber-reinforced elastomeric bearings were originally proposed as an alternative to conventional steel-reinforced elastomeric bearings for seismic isolation applications. The flexible fiber reinforcement is a light-weight and potentially cost saving alternative to steel reinforcement which is assumed rigid in the design process. The variety of fiber materials available also serves as an additional parameter for designers to tailor the vertical stiffness of the bearing. In this paper, the analytical solution for the vertical compression modulus of a rectangular elastomeric pad including the effects of bulk compressibility and extensibility of the fiber reinforcement is used to investigate the achievable decrease in vertical frequency. It is shown by an example that the extensibility of the fiber reinforcement can be used to significantly reduce the vertical stiffness in comparison to an equivalent steel-reinforced elastomeric bearing. The resulting decrease in the vertical frequency means that fiber-reinforced elastomeric bearings may have an advantage over steel-reinforced bearings in the vibration isolation of buildings.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.216 · 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