Effects of Ground Motion Duration on Seismic Damage of Bridge Isolation Bearings Based on Friction SDOF System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is generally perceived that ground motion duration has an effect on structural seismic response and damage, despite the neglect of current seismic codes. Based on friction SDOF systems, this paper investigates the duration effect of ground motions on seismic responses and damage of sliding bearings. Ground motions are divided into long-duration (LD) and short-duration (SD) cases, taking the significant duration of 25[Formula: see text]s as the boundary. Each case consists of natural records and spectrally equivalent artificial ground motions to decouple duration from other earthquake characteristics. Results from response history analyses implicate that duration has hardly any effect on seismic responses of the system exhibiting an approximate linear elasticity. Nevertheless, for systems with distinct frictional nonlinearity, selecting LD ground motions as seismic inputs usually leads to a conservative result. By performing incremental dynamic analysis (IDA), nonlinear systems in SD cases bear 10% higher damage risk than those in LD cases without considering the influence of temperature rise. The same is true for systems with a small friction coefficient of 0.005 when earthquakes are in the low intensity range. It was also found that damage exceedance probabilities of these small friction coefficient systems are almost unaffected by the duration as the peak ground acceleration increases to more than 0.6[Formula: see text][Formula: see text]. When the effect of temperature rise caused by friction is considered, the damage exceedance probability in LD cases is higher than SD cases. The damage probability of friction SDOF system under LD earthquake will be underestimated without considering the influence of temperature rise.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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".