MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010366364 · doi:10.11648/j.ajce.20200801.12

Hybrid Simulation Framework for Multi-hazard Testing

2020· article· en· W3010366364 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Elias Strepelias, Νικόλαος Σταθάς, Xenofon Palios, Stathis Bousias

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Civil Engineering · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean CommissionUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Patras
KeywordsPipingField (mathematics)HazardBenchmark (surveying)EngineeringComputer scienceReliability engineeringCantileverSystems engineeringMechanical engineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design of complicated structures which, under accidental actions, have to fulfill a certain performance level, has been a scientific challenge with social and economic implications, particularly in the field of earthquake engineering. Experimental testing on structures would shed light to the deriving issues, however the full-scaling requirements of the specimens and the most out of date existing laboratory facilities do not facilitate it. For that reason, it is generally proposed the testing structure to be decomposed in its components and the part of scientific interest can be laboratory tested, whereas the other substructures are analytically modelled. That approach is known as hybrid simulation method (HS) and lends itself as an efficient tool in unveiling the nonlinear response of structural systems, especially when testing in full-scale is sought. The present research aims to evaluate the technical aspects of implementing a robust, advanced hybrid simulation (HS) platform, based on technological advancements and combining user friendliness and effectiveness. In addition, the capabilities of the advanced platform pave the way to future research extensions towards studying multi-physics problems beyond the field of earthquake engineering. The good performance of the updated hardware configuration of the new platform was evaluated via a series of verification tests on a pinned steel cantilever column subjected to lateral loading in its elastic and inelastic response region and finally, making use of the advanced application platform as a whole, a hybrid simulation test was carried out on an industrial piping system under earthquake excitation.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207