MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023956354 · doi:10.1177/0021998312466686

Influence of thickness of individual elastomer layers (first shape factor) on the response of unbonded fiber-reinforced elastomeric bearings

2012· article· en· W2023956354 on OpenAlexafffund
Hamid Toopchi‐Nezhad, Michael J. Tait, Robert G. Drysdale

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceMcMaster University
KeywordsMaterials scienceElastomerShape factorBearing (navigation)StiffnessComposite materialModulusStress (linguistics)FiberAspect ratio (aeronautics)Compression (physics)Structural engineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper is to study the influence of thickness of individual elastomer layers (first shape factor) on the vertical and horizontal responses of fiber reinforced elastomeric bearings that are not bonded or mechanically fastened to their top and bottom supports. By definition, the first shape factor, S 1 , is the ratio of the plan area to the perimeter stress-free area of a single elastomer layer within the bearing. Results of a comprehensive 2D-finite element study on a large group of bearings with different shape factors of 10, 15, 20, 30, and 40 suggest that the shape factor S 1 is a critical parameter in controlling both the vertical compression modulus of the bearing and the level of stress in the fiber-reinforcing layers. Furthermore, the secant horizontal stiffness and the stress demand in the bearing elastomer material are to a limited extent influenced by the parameter S 1 .

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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composite MaterialsSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207