Application of low yield strength steel on controlled plastification ductile concentrically braced frames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hysteretic behavior of buckling inhibited braces (BIBs) (or unbonded braces) made of low yield strength steel is investigated experimentally. Test results from four large-scale specimens showed that the BIB is able to prevent early buckling and cracking that occur in conventional braces and develop to the full capacity the strength, ductility, and energy-dissipation capacity of the steel used. In addition, the use of low yield strength steel results in small yield deformation and dramatic strain hardening of the BIB. Earthquake simulation tests of a 0.4-scale three-storey ductile concentrically braced frame (DCBF), which employed low yield strength steel BIBs as concentric braces, were carried out. Test results verified the applicability of the BIB and the high seismic performance of the DCBF. The idea of controlled plastification worked well. In addition, both the 70% lateral-force distribution requirement of the Uniform Building Code and the 30% lateral-force distribution requirement of CAN/CSA-S16.1-94 seem unnecessary for a DCBF system.Key words: concentrically braced frames, earthquake-resistant structures, braces, steel structures.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".