MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972714746 · doi:10.1139/l10-113

Experimental cyclic loading of concentric HSS braces

2010· article· en· W1972714746 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Madhar Haddad, Tom Brown, Nigel G. Shrive

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBraceBracingStructural engineeringDissipationConcentricBuckleFracture (geology)BucklingTension (geology)Displacement (psychology)EngineeringCompression (physics)Braced frameMaterials scienceComposite materialMathematicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During earthquake ground motion, diagonal braces in braced frames are subject to a series of cyclic loadings, alternately tension and compression. The brace can buckle and deform plastically, dissipating energy with damage accumulating in the steel. Eventually a crack may form and the brace fractures. To optimize energy dissipation, the effects of brace and gusset plate dimensions (thickness and length of the gusset plate, size of the brace, length of the brace), and material properties, on brace behaviour, need to be understood. Ten concentric bracing members, designed according to the weak brace – strong gusset concept, were tested. The objective was to investigate the effects of displacement history, brace effective slenderness ratio, and brace width/thickness ratio, on the hysteresis behaviour of bracing members. Displacement history was found to affect energy dissipation and fracture life. The effects of increasing the gusset plate thickness on the energy dissipation and the fracture life is not the same as reducing the effective slenderness ratio of the bracing member resulted from reducing the length of the HSS. New fracture life and energy life equations are proposed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207