Energy Dissipation Technologies in Seismic Retrofitting: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to ensure the safety of existing buildings constructed many years ago in zones with high seismicity, it is very important to consider and apply retrofitting measures. The seismic retrofitting of buildings can be achieved by techniques such as increasing the stiffness and ductility of the building and reducing the seismic demand. Energy dissipative devices such as various types of dampers are among the most popular and widely studied devices for improving the performance of buildings exposed to earthquakes. This paper presents a systematic literature review of the seismic retrofitting of existing buildings using energy dissipating devices. More than 230 journal and conference articles were collected from three well-known scientific resources published from 2010 to 2024. The main classification of papers considered was based on energy-dissipating devices employed for retrofitting goals. According to this analysis, there is a vast number of energy dissipative devices and design methods studied by scholars, and energy dissipation based on friction, viscous, and hysteretic mechanisms are the most useful for dampers. On the other hand, only relatively few articles were found about seismic loss assessment and the economic aspects of buildings retrofitted with the proposed damping tools.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".