MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2957335298 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2018-0014

Investigation of partially bonded fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators (PB-FREIs) with nominal vertical tensile loads

2019· article· en· W2957335298 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Niel C. Van Engelen, Michael J. Tait, Dimitrios Konstantinidis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSociety for Reproductive Endocrinology and InfertilityMcMaster University
KeywordsMaterials scienceUltimate tensile strengthElastomerComposite materialStructural engineeringSlip (aerodynamics)FiberReinforcementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unbonded fiber-reinforced elastomeric isolators (FREIs) were initially proposed as a potential low-cost alternative to conventional steel-reinforced elastomeric isolators (SREIs). FREIs are similar to SREIs but comparatively lightweight as the steel components from SREIs have been replaced with polymer fibers in FREIs. Subsequent experimental investigations identified that unbonded FREIs have desirable characteristics for seismic isolation due to the unbonded application and fiber reinforcement. The unbonded application removes mechanical fasteners, relying on friction to transfer horizontal loads, further reducing the cost. However, the unbonded application also introduces limitations, being susceptible to slip in certain loading conditions and being incapable of resisting tensile forces. In this paper, the concept of partially bonded FREIs (PB-FREIs), a proposed solution to these limitations, is further investigated experimentally with nominal vertical tensile loads. It is shown that PB-FREIs can achieve similar properties to an unbonded FREI with a vertical compressive load.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.156
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207