MétaCan
← all works

Seismic testing and performance of buckling-restrained bracing systems

2006· article· en· 357 citations· W2090738762 on OpenAlex· 10.1139/l05-103

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian funderA Canadian agency funded it. The work may carry no Canadian affiliation at all.
Canadian venueIt was published in a Canadian venue.

No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame — the usual design — would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Machine scores (provisional)

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.159
Teacher spread
0.153 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

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.

The record

Venue
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering
Topic
Seismic Performance and Analysis
Field
Engineering
Canadian institutions
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Keywords
BracingStructural engineeringBucklingBraceDissipationStrain hardening exponentQuasistatic loadingEngineeringYield (engineering)Dynamic loadingDisplacement (psychology)Quasistatic processGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceComposite material
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes