Shake table testing and numerical simulation of a self‐centering energy dissipative braced frame
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY The self‐centering energy dissipative (SCED) brace is a new steel bracing member that provides both damping to the structure and a re‐centering capability. The goal of this study was to confirm the behavior of SCED braces within complete structural systems and to confirm the ability to model these systems with both a state‐of‐the‐art computer model as well as a simplified model that would be useful to practicing engineers. To these ends, a three‐story SCED‐braced frame was designed and constructed for testing on a shake table. Two concurrent computer models of the entire frame were constructed: one using the opensees nonlinear dynamic modeling software, and a simplified model using the commercial structural analysis software sap2000. The frame specimen was subjected to 12 significant earthquakes without any adjustment or modification between the tests. The SCED braces prevented residual drifts in the frame, as designed, and did not show any significant degradation due to wear. Both numerical models were able to predict the drifts, story shears, and column forces well. Peak story accelerations were overestimated in the models; this effect was found to be caused by the absence of transitions at stiffness changes in the hysteretic model of the braces. Copyright © 2013 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".