Mechanisms to limit higher mode effects in a controlled rocking steel frame. 2: Large‐amplitude shake table testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY This paper presents the results of 56 large‐amplitude shake table tests of a 30% scale eight‐storey controlled rocking steel frame. No significant damage or residual deformations were observed after any of the tests. The frame had four possible configurations on the basis of combinations of two higher mode mitigation mechanisms. The first mitigation mechanism was formed by allowing the upper section of the frame to rock, so as to better control the mid‐height overturning moment. The second mitigation mechanism was formed by replacing the conventional first‐storey brace with a self‐centering energy dissipative (SCED) brace, so as to better control the base shear. The mechanisms had little effect during records where higher mode effects were not apparent, but they substantially reduced the shear and overturning moment envelopes, as well as the peak floor accelerations, during more demanding records. The reduction in storey shears led to similarly reduced brace force demands. Although the peak force demands in the columns were not reduced by as much as the frame overturning moments, using an upper rocking joint allowed the column demands to be estimated without the need to assume a lateral force distribution. The tests demonstrated that multiple force‐limiting mechanisms can be used to provide better control of peak seismic forces without excessive increases in drift demands, thus enabling more reliable capacity design. These results are expected to be widely applicable to structures where the peak seismic forces are significantly influenced by higher mode effects. Copyright © 2012 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".