MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Seismic Response of Multistory Buildings with Self-Centering Energy Dissipative Steel Braces

2007· article· en· W2006890818 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Structural Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBracingStructural engineeringDissipative systemResidualAccelerationBucklingIncremental Dynamic AnalysisSeismic analysisResponse analysisGround motionGeologyEngineeringComputer sciencePhysicsBrace

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the seismic response of 2-, 4-, 8-, 12-, and 16-story steel framed buildings with self-centering energy dissipative (SCED) bracing members. The structures are assumed to be located in Los Angeles, California. Identical buildings equipped with buckling restrained braces (BRB) are also studied for comparison purposes. Incremental static analysis and nonlinear dynamic analysis under ground motion ensembles corresponding to three hazard levels were performed. The SCED frames generally experienced smaller peak story drifts, less damage concentration over the building height, and smaller residual lateral deformations compared to the BRB system. Higher floor acceleration peaks were observed in the SCED frames due to the sharper transitions between elastic and inelastic response assumed in the analysis. The study also indicated that higher design seismic loads may be needed for low-rise SCED and BRB frames in order to improve their collapse prevention performance.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.190 · 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