Ioannis Lymperis

• Inventor International patent Independent researcher
• Principal Investigator at The Ultimate Anti-Seismic System

I would like to further clarify the wall's behavior under seismic loading, explain how my technology eliminates tension and prevents compressive failure, and emphasize that my approach fully complies with the Eurocodes. I hope this analysis will help in understanding my method and enhance our scientific dialogue.

When a wall is subjected to seismic loading, the acceleration of the mass causes an overturning moment, resulting in the wall rotating around its base (like a hinge). During this rotation, the faces of the wall experience different forces:

The above description can be likened to the circumference of a wheel: as the wheel rotates, one point on the circumference moves downwards P (in contact with the ground, like the compressive face), while the opposite point W moves upwards (like the tensile face).

Tension in the lifting face arises from two main causes:

My technology eliminates tension in an innovative way:

It is important to emphasize that my technology does not lead to compressive failure of the wall, as you might assume. The pre-stressing applied through the tendons not only neutralizes tension but also increases the effective cross-section of the wall that participates in compression. Specifically:

My technology has been designed and tested based on the requirements of the Eurocodes, particularly EC8 (Eurocode 8) for earthquake-resistant design. Specifically:

Beyond neutralizing tension and preventing compressive failure, my technology utilizes:

My approach has been tested with the Tohoku seismograph (PGA 1.5g = 1440.17 cm/s²), and the results demonstrate its validity because all indicators are consistent.

Plot 1: The conventional system exhibits failure with an FS of 1.56, while the innovative system demonstrates safe behavior (FS = 4.57).

Plot 2: The displacement of the innovative system is 88% smaller than that of the conventional system.

✅ OpenSeesPy loaded correctly!

Displacement limit: 0.18 m

Base shear limit: 36000000.0 N

Compressive force limit: 359999999.99999994 N

Maximum acceleration from seismic data is: 20.46179405 m/s²

✅ The analysis was set correctly!

✅ The structure did not fail during the analysis.

I am particularly excited to share with you the results of my extensive independent research in the field of seismic technology. My work focuses on developing innovative methods and techniques that can enhance the resilience and safety of buildings during seismic events.

I have developed a mechanism that is placed at the depths of boreholes and expands by pressing against the borehole walls with the help of hydraulic jacks positioned at the ground surface, achieving a strong anchorage to the soil. This mechanism is capable of withstanding tensile forces of several hundred tons.

My research is not limited to theoretical studies but also includes experimental testing that validates the effectiveness of these technologies. I believe that applying these methods to existing or new engineering projects, as well as bridge construction, holds great practical value and can significantly contribute to the protection of human lives and property.

I would be delighted to share more details and discuss potential collaborations or applications of these technologies. I hope you will have the opportunity to review my findings and provide me with your insights.

Best regards

The evaluation of seismic behavior in structures requires seismic experiments that simulate the true ground-structure interaction. The traditional method of conducting experiments with bolted bases (locking) leads to inaccurate results, as it does not replicate the real-world condition where the base does not carry moments and other dynamic forces. This paper proposes the correct methodology for conducting seismic experiments, using only two stops at the ends of the specimen to limit sliding without restricting the natural movement of the base. This method allows for the proper distribution of moments to the joints of the structure and an accurate representation of seismic behavior.

The seismic behavior of structures is critical for the safety of buildings and infrastructure in areas with high seismic risk. Seismic shake tables are used to simulate the response of structures to seismic loading. However, an accurate representation of the ground-structure interaction is essential for correct seismic capacity assessment.

The common practice in most experiments is bolting the specimens to the base of the seismic shake table, effectively creating locking. This locking inhibits the normal movement of the structure and gives a false impression of the way forces are distributed, as in real conditions, the base does not carry moments.

To conduct accurate seismic experiments, we propose the following methodology:

Bolting the specimens to the shake table creates the illusion that the base is carrying moments and dynamic forces, which does not occur in reality. Locking restricts the natural movement of the base and prevents the proper distribution of moments to the joints, leading to inaccurate results for the seismic resistance of structures.

In reality, the base of structures does not carry moments, and the moments are distributed to the joints and connections of structural elements. Therefore, the use of stops to prevent sliding, without bolting the specimen to the base, provides a more realistic representation of seismic behavior.

Thus, seismic experiments should be conducted without bolting the specimens to the base to replicate the natural interaction between the ground and the structure. This allows the moments to be properly distributed to the joints and provides accurate results for seismic performance.

Experiments with bolting the structure to the seismic base lead to inaccurate results, as the base carries moments that are not transferred from the ground in real-world conditions. The correct methodology for conducting seismic experiments is avoiding locking, using stops at the ends to prevent sliding while allowing the structure to move freely on the base. This method better replicates the natural seismic behavior of structures and leads to more accurate and reliable results for assessing their seismic capacity.

Seismic experiments, locking, bolting, ground-structure interaction, moments, joints, seismic resistance, accurate results.

Philosophical Thoughts These philosophical questions do not have easy answers, but they are fundamental to understanding human existence and our relationship with the universe. It is fascinating how the concept of the "real" remains dynamic and evolves, drawing from science, technology, metaphysics, and psychology.

Information, energy, storage, and our senses are the foundations of our perception of the universe. Our senses act as filters that shape our experience. If we had more or different senses, we would likely perceive an entirely different reality. This brings up the question: Is there an objective reality, or only different versions of it, depending on how each being perceives it? Consciousness seems to be a dynamic system that adapts to the data it can collect. Therefore, do we live within a window of reality determined by our biological limits? What I’m describing is very similar to Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Our senses work like the shadows on the wall of the cave – they give us a limited version of reality, but not the whole of it. If we had more senses or different perception, we might see a completely different world, perhaps closer to the true nature of existence. So, is the universe as we know it just a projection of our perception and not the absolute reality? And if so, is there a way to escape the cave and understand something beyond the limits of our senses? Our perception of reality is directly linked to the senses and tools available to us. If we look through a microscope, we suddenly discover an entirely different world, invisible until then. Similarly, if we had more senses or other ways of perceiving information, we might understand the universe in an entirely different way. So, is reality simply a projection of our limited senses and not something absolute? If the reality we perceive depends on our senses and tools, then it might simply be a projection of a much more complex and unknown world – something like a user interface of the universe, adapted to the capabilities of the human brain. This reminds us of: