Experimental study of the effect of restraining rim design on the extreme behavior of pendulum sliding bearings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary While the performance of sliding isolators has been extensively validated under typical levels of ground motion, there have been very few experimental studies on the extreme behavior of sliding isolation bearings when the displacement limit is reached. However, to appropriately design isolated systems, from selecting the displacement capacity of the bearing to sizing the superstructure members, the behavior of the bearing as it reaches, and in some cases exceeds, the displacement limit should be well understood. A series of shake table tests to investigate the extreme behavior of double pendulum sliding bearings under strong ground motions were conducted at McMaster University. One major difference in sliding bearings around the world is how the motion of the bearing is restrained at the bearing's displacement capacity. Scaled bearings with four different types of restraining rim designs were included, representing typical sliding restraining rims found in Europe, Japan, and the United States. Experimental observation shows that the restraining rim has a significant influence on the extreme behavior of sliding isolation bearing. Key response parameters such as impact force and uplift are evaluated and compared between the different sliding bearing designs. While the bearing with no rim bearing imparts the lowest forces to the superstructure, it loses its functionality at a lower amplitude input than all the other rim types. For the other rim designs, the impact forces are significantly higher but they remained operational although damaged.
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".