MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396722339 · doi:10.1080/13632469.2024.2345180

Viscoelastic Dampers for Vibration Control of Building Structures: A State-of-Art Review

2024· review· en· W4396722339 on OpenAlexaff
Ruokai You, Yazhou Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Earthquake Engineering · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration Control and Rheological Fluids
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViscoelasticityDamperStructural engineeringVibrationVibration controlState (computer science)EngineeringTuned mass damperComputer scienceMaterials sciencePhysicsAcousticsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to its high effectiveness and low cost, viscoelastic damper (VED) is a commonly used type of passive energy dissipation device to reduce structural vibrations and responses against earthquakes and strong winds. Over the past decades, scholars have developed new types of VEDs to be installed at different structural locations. These VEDs offer better post-disaster recoverability and smarter behaviors for structures. Nonetheless, existing efforts of various VEDs and the technologies supporting VEDs were seldomly summarized. This article presents a critical state-of-art review of the existing research on VEDs, hybrid VED devices, and the design methods for structures installed with VEDs. First, the VEDs are classified based on the design locations in building structures, including VEDs used as coupling beams and damping walls, installed in braces and beam-column joints, and used to connect parallel structures. In addition to these classic VEDs, the study presents the high-performance VEDs and the corresponding techniques, such as the combined usage with other materials and/or devices. Furthermore, as an important contribution to the presented work, various design methods for structures enhanced by VEDs were systematically summarized. These methods considered different evaluation parameters aiming at different design targets. Finally, this article identifies and highlights research challenges in the existing studies. Possible improvements that could be made in the future were also provided.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Earthquake EngineeringSame topicVibration Control and Rheological FluidsFrench-language works237,207