Effect of bonding or unbonding on seismic behavior of bridge elastomeric bearings: lessons learned from past earthquakes in China and Japan and inspirations for future design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Economical laminated elastomeric bearings are well-adopted options for load transmission components of bridges from superstructure to substructure. In most cases, the design of such elastomeric bearings primarily depends on the requirements from service-level conditions such as superstructure thermal movements, with little consideration of extreme loads like earthquakes. However, bridge elastomeric bearings are very likely to be subjected to earthquake hazards, particularly for bridges located in high seismic regions. This study presents an overview of the observed typical damages of bridge elastomeric bearings in the past major earthquakes mainly in China and Japan. Comparisons of different damage patterns are conducted based on the different installations of bridge elastomeric bearings (bonding or un-bonding). The effect of bearing installation methods on the overall seismic behavior of bridges is also discussed. A desirable installation method for bridge elastomeric bearings against strong earthquake loads is recommended, which is expected to overcome the critical limitations of current design practice.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".