Seismic Performance of Low-to-Moderate Height Eccentrically Braced Steel Frames Designed for North American Seismic Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global seismic response of 3- and 8-story eccentrically braced frames (EBFs), designed for western and eastern North American locations, is studied using nonlinear time history analysis. Analytical models were built in three computer programs. Similar maximum forces were obtained, but the inelastic deformation predictions at the element and global structural levels showed sensitivity to the modeling employed. This feature should be considered in seismic performance assessment or design. Current design methods failed to predict interstory drifts and plastic link rotations, but the study confirmed the strong correlation between the two parameters associated with rigid-plastic behavior. The influence of yielding and flexural buckling of frame members, other than the links on the global frame performance, was evaluated using the OpenSees model. It was confirmed that the flexural yielding of outer beams is acceptable for EBFs with short and intermediate links, if the combined flexural strength of the braces and beams is at least equal to the expected end-link moments and the braces can resist the associated axial force-bending moment demand. Inelastic response of braces and columns in such frames did not negatively impact the overall frame behavior.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".