Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-05
  • https dataverse harvard edu dataset xhtml persistentId doi

    2018-10-25

    https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/SUCU5X.
    Experimental design, materials and methods Round fatigue specimens with uniform gage section and the dimensions and geometry, shown in Fig. 1, were designed according to ASTM standard E606/E606M-12 [2]. The specimens were fabricated from 12.7mm diameter round bars of Ti–6Al–4V ELI, received in a mill-annealed condition (annealed for 1h at 1300°F). All fatigue experiments were conducted under strain-controlled condition at room temperature, utilizing an MTS extensometer model 634.31F-25, a servohydraulic test frame with 100kN load cell capacity, and a sinusoidal waveform input. Tests were performed using strain amplitudes that ranged from 0.0015 to 0.012mm/mm. Influence of strain rate effects was minimized by adjusting the test frequency, ranging from 0.5 to 5Hz, for each test condition to maintain a relatively consistent average strain rate for all tests. In addition, for each prescribed test condition, duplicate tests were conducted to validate the collected data and ensure the repeatability of experiments. Further details on the experimental program are presented in the following subsections according to the type of loading utilized.
    Disclaimer
    Acknowledgements This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Command under Contract no. W56HZV-08-C-0236. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this leukotriene receptor antagonist material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Command. This work was done while Patricio E. Carrion and Nima Shamsaei were at Mississippi State University.
    Data The experimental recordings reported in this paper were collected during the tests of concrete ties reinforced with multiple bars [1]. Cross-sections of the ties and surface characteristics of the reinforcement bars are presented in Fig. 1 with main reinforcement characteristics described in Table 1. The tests were performed in the Research Laboratory of Innovative Building Structures at Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (Lithuania). The test setup is shown in Fig. 2. Crack spacing characteristics and crack development schemes are presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The Supplementary material consists of the database of average strains of reinforcement and concrete surface of the ties.
    Design of the tests, materials, and methods
    Funding sources This work is part of a Ph.D. thesis of Arvydas Rimkus and was funded by the Research Council of Lithuania (Research Project MIP–050/2014).
    Data The data collected in the article are related to the research article entitled Retrofit strategies towards Net Zero Energy Educational Buildings: a case study at the University of the Basque Country (Ref. 0378–7788)[1]. The dataset presented in campodactyly paper correspond to the indoor temperature and relative humidity of a seminar room located on the second floor of the Architecture Faculty in San Sebastian (Spain). The inputs correspond to a typical spring week: from 25th April to 1st May 2016, being the heating system off. In the following Tables 1 and 2 data for the day with the maximum values (26th April) and the day with the minimum values (28th April) are presented. The average outdoor temperature on 26th April was 11.8°C and the average relative humidity 73.3% (Table 1). The maximum outdoor temperature was 14.2°C and was registered at 14:00. The minimum outdoor temperature was 9.4°C and was registered at 06:00. The average indoor temperature on 26th April was 22.8°C and the average relative humidity 43.55%. The maximum indoor temperature was 24.4°C and was registered at 12:00 by the Sensor 3 (located at the back rows). The minimum indoor temperature was 21.4°C and was registered from 02:00 to 08:00 by the Sensor 2 (located on the façade). According to occupation, 19 students were registered at 10:00 and 11 at 19:00. Location of the sensors is shown in Fig. 1.