Non‐linear time history analyses of a rigid block isolated with unbonded fiber‐reinforced elastomeric isolators (UFREIs): A comparison between 3D finite element and phenomenological models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Numerical modeling represents a pivotal tool in the seismic analysis and design of structural systems, enabling the detailed prediction and examination of structural responses under seismic loading. This research conducts a comparative analysis of two numerical modeling approaches aimed at simulating the seismic response of unbonded fiber‐reinforced elastomeric isolators (UFREIs). The research focuses on a finite element (FE) model developed using Abaqus and a developed phenomenological model implemented in OpenSees, outlining the development and calibration processes for each. The FE model is developed based on simple rubber material testing data, while the phenomenological model is calibrated using experimental results from cyclic shear tests conducted on the UFREI device and the FE model. The primary objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of these modeling approaches in predicting UFREI behavior under seismic conditions. This evaluation entails comparing model predictions with experimental data obtained from unidirectional shake table tests performed on a rigid block isolated by two UFREIs. This paper highlights the distinct advantages and limitations of each model in simulating UFREI dynamic responses during seismic events. Furthermore, it provides insights into the modeling techniques and discusses the computational demands and data requirements of each model, thereby aiding in their application to various aspects of seismic analysis and design.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".