Seismic Safety Assessment of Base‐Isolated Buildings Using Lead‐Rubber Bearings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lead‐rubber bearing (LRB) is a well developed and implemented isolation technology. One of the design challenges is to prevent LRBs from buckling during strong earthquake shaking. Although detailed component behavior of LRB under combined axial and shear loads has been well investigated, the seismic performance of base‐isolated buildings with LRBs has not been systematically examined. In this study, the robust finite element model of the LRB, which accounts for the axial and shear coupling, has been used to examine the seismic performances of two prototype buildings, each with different LRB geometric properties, structural periods, and axial loads. The results of nonlinear dynamic analyses show that the axial and shear coupling response of the LRB play an important role in the safety of base‐isolated buildings. A simple amplification factor of 2.5 is proposed to increase the axial capacity of the LRB when the shear deformation reaches the maximum total displacement. The results show that such a simple amplification factor can produce low probability of failure of LRB buildings during strong earthquake shaking.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".