Seismic testing and performance of buckling-restrained bracing systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a subassemblage seismic test program performed on six buckling-restrained braces (BRBs). Two different brace core segment lengths and two different buckling-restraining mechanisms were examined. The applied loading histories included a qualifying quasi-static cyclic test with stepwise incremental displacement amplitudes and a dynamically applied seismic loading. A test was also carried out on a conventional bracing member for comparison purposes. The concrete-filled tube specimens exhibited satisfactory performance under the quasi-static loading protocol, regardless of the length of the core segment. Strain hardening and frictional responses resulted in brace axial forces significantly exceeding the core yield capacity. The steel BRB system exhibited good performance under the quasi-static and dynamic loading sequences, provided that the clearance between the brace core and the buckling-restrained mechanism was kept to a minimum. The dynamic loading protocol was less severe for low-cycle fatigue than the quasi-static loading, but higher strain rates resulted in amplified yield resistance. The conventional bracing member withstood the entire quasi-static loading history but exhibited limited energy-dissipation capacity compared with the concrete-filled BRBs.Key words: concentrically braced steel frames, bracing members, buckling, energy dissipation, friction, yielding, fracture, seismic.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".