Testing of Superelastic Recentering Pre-Strained Braces for Seismic Resistant Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, the use of shape memory alloys (SMAs) in passive control devices has been explored. Nevertheless, some aspects in regards to the cyclic behavior of SMAs and the effect of pre-straining need to be clarified. In this study, small-scale shake table tests have been performed to explore the effectiveness of SMA bracing systems as compared to steel bracing systems. The reduced-scale experimental results imply that SMAs used in braces are more effective in controlling the response of a steel frame compared with a traditional bracing system. A finite element model (FEM) of the frame is developed in order to compare the analytical results with the shake table tests. Further, the effect of pre-straining the SMA braces is evaluated through both experimental and analytical studies. The results show that pre-straining improves the performance of the frame compared to the nonpre-strained case. However, as the level of pre-straining increases above approximately 1.0% to 1.5%, the benefits of pre-straining decrease compared with low-to-moderate pre-strain levels.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".