Effect of gravity framing on the overstrength and collapse capacity of steel frame buildings with perimeter special moment frames
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This paper investigates the effect of the gravity framing system on the overstrength and collapse risk of steel frame buildings with perimeter special moment frames (SMFs) designed in North America. A nonlinear analytical model that simulates the pinched hysteretic response of typical shear tab connections is calibrated with past experimental data. The proposed modeling approach is implemented into nonlinear analytical models of archetype steel buildings with different heights. It is found that when the gravity framing is considered as part of the analytical model, the overall base shear strength of steel frame buildings with perimeter SMFs could be 50% larger than that of the bare SMFs. This is attributed to the gravity framing as well as the composite action provided by the concrete slab. The same analytical models (i) achieve a static overstrength factor, Ω s larger than 3.0 and (ii) pass the collapse risk evaluation criteria by FEMA P695 regardless of the assigned total system uncertainty. However, when more precise collapse metrics are considered for collapse risk assessment of steel frame buildings with perimeter SMFs, a tolerable probability of collapse is only achieved in a return period of 50 years when the perimeter SMFs of mid‐rise steel buildings are designed with a strong‐column/weak‐beam ratio larger than 1.5. The concept of the dynamic overstrength, Ω d is introduced that captures the inelastic force redistribution due to dynamic loading. Steel frame buildings with perimeter SMFs achieve a Ω d > 3 regardless if the gravity framing is considered as part of the nonlinear analytical model representation. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it