A comparative study of floor accelerations of different structural systems with lead-rubber-bearing (LRB) isolators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seismic base isolation technique has been successfully used to protect structural as well as nonstructural components from the damaging effects of earthquakes by reducing floor accelerations and inter-story drifts for many decades. The level of floor acceleration is a key issue in the protection of acceleration-sensitive nonstructural components. The intensity of floor acceleration varies depending on the vibration characteristics of the structural system. Furthermore, the viscous damping devices sometimes are used to improve the performance of the superstructure as well as the base isolation system. The characteristics of the ground motions are also influential in the performance of the viscous damping devices. In this paper, the floor acceleration performance of seismically isolated buildings with different lateral load resisting systems such as moment resisting frame, dual system, moment resisting frame plus viscous wall dampers, and dual system plus viscous wall dampers is investigated under near-fault and far-fault earthquake ground motions. Moreover, the effectiveness of supplemental viscous damping devices equipped in parallel with lead-rubber-bearing isolators is studied. It is inferred from the study that the most effective way of reducing floor accelerations is to provide more rigidity to the superstructure. Utilizing supplemental viscous dampers along with lead-rubber-bearing isolators having about 20% of effective damping ratio is meaningless or harmful in relation to floor acceleration and base shear.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".