EPS Seismic Buffers for Earthquake Load Attenuation against Rigid Retaining Walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expanded polystyrene (EPS) geofoam is an ideal material to construct seismic buffers to reduce earthquake-induced loads against rigid retaining wall structures. The paper provides a synthesis of published work by the writers on both experimental and numerical simulation work on EPS seismic buffers. Proof of concept is first demonstrated using a series of 1 m-high models placed on a shaking table. The tests showed that for the geofoam materials employed, a reduction in peak dynamic loads as great as 40% was possible compared to the rigid wall case. Next, a FLAC computer model was developed to simulate the experimental results. The validated model was then used to carry out a parametric analysis to investigate the influence of wall height, EPS geofoam type, thickness, stiffness, and excitation record on seismic buffer performance. One of the important outcomes of this research is that the practical quantity of interest to attenuate dynamic loads using a seismic buffer is the buffer stiffness defined as K = E/t (E = elastic modulus, t = thickness). For the range of parameters investigated in this study, K ≤ 50 MN/m3 was observed to be the practical range for the design of these systems to attenuate earthquake loads.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".