Numerical parametric study of expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam seismic buffers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam seismic buffers can be used to reduce earthquake-induced loads acting on rigid retaining wall structures. A numerical study was carried out to investigate the influence of wall height; EPS geofoam type, thickness, and stiffness; and excitation record on seismic buffer performance. The numerical simulations were carried out using a verified FLAC code. The influence of parameter values was examined by computing the maximum forces on the walls, the buffer compressive strains, and the relative efficiency of the buffer system. In general, the closer the predominant frequency of excitation to the fundamental frequency of the wall model, the greater the seismic loads and buffer compression. The choice of earthquake record is shown to affect the magnitude of maximum earth force and isolation efficiency. However, when the wall response for walls 3 to 9 m in height are presented in this study in terms of isolation efficiency, the data from scaled accelerograms and matching harmonic records with the same predominant frequency fall within a relatively narrow band when plotted against relative buffer thickness. For the range of parameters investigated, a buffer stiffness value less than 50 MN/m3 was judged to be the practical range for the design of these systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".