Seismic Performance of Steel Buildings with Braced Dual Configuration and Traditional Frame Systems through Nonlinear Collapse Simulations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT \nSeismic Performance of Steel Buildings with Braced Dual Configuration and Traditional Frame Systems through Nonlinear Collapse Simulations \nYudong Wang \nTraditional concentrically braced frames, CBF, are stiff and provide limited to moderate ductility, while moment resisting frames, MRF, are able to dissipate seismic energy when undergoing large lateral displacements. However, these traditional earthquake resistant systems do not show uniformly distributed damage along the building height. Changes in structural proprieties during nonlinear hysteresis behaviour may lead to drift concentration and weak-storey response. Moreover, both traditional systems are susceptible to long-duration subduction earthquakes. \nThe pursuit of these issues led to the concept of utilizing multiple-resisting structural systems that act progressively so that the overall seismic resistance is not significantly reduced during long-duration earthquakes. The structural system consisting of a rigid braced frame that provides primary stable cyclic behavior and a moment frame acting as a backup system with good flexural behavior is the steel Braced Dual System studied herein. \nThe objectives of this study are: a) to investigate the seismic response of steel Braced Dual building from yielding to failure, as well as, to identify the types of failure mechanism; b) to assess the seismic response of Braced Dual System against the traditional MRFs and CBFs with moderate ductility through incremental dynamic analysis; c) to evaluate the effect of long duration subduction earthquakes versus crustal type earthquakes on these building systems through collapse safety criteria using FEMA P695 procedure and to assess the probability of exceeding defined performance levels using fragility analysis. \nTo carry out these objectives, detail numerical models were developed using the OpenSees framework. The prototype 8-storey office building is located on firm soil in Vancouver, B.C. and is subjected to two sets of crustal and subduction ground motions. Two traditional earthquake resistant systems (MD-CBF, MD-MRF) and the Braced Dual System are considered. Design is conducted according to NBCC2015 and CSA/S16-14. \nFrom nonlinear time history analysis, the following results are reported: for the Braced Dual System, two types of failure mechanism involving either one floor or two adjacent floors (in general the bottom floors) were identified which also involve flexural yielding of MRF beam of critical floors; the Braced Dual System provides larger ductility than the MD-CBF, shows significant increase of seismic resistant capacity for similar seismic demands, provides the largest collapse margin ratio and collapse safety capacity under both earthquake types. In addition, the building with Braced Dual System shows a progressive seismic behavior and a more uniform damage distribution along the building height. From fragility analysis resulted that at Collapse Prevention (CP) limit state, the Braced Dual System experiences 100% probability of exceedance after it was subjected to two times larger seismic demand than the MD-CBF or MD-MRF systems. All studied structural systems are sensitive to long duration subduction earthquake.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».