Fundamental periods of steel concentrically braced frames designed to Eurocode 8
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A two‐phase research program has been undertaken to investigate fundamental natural periods of concentrically braced frames (CBFs) designed according to Eurocode 8 (EC8). In the first phase of the program, over 83,700 buildings were designed, and the accuracy of the lower bound expressions given in well‐known design specifications was evaluated. The results indicated that the lower bound expressions given in EC8 and National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) are acceptable. Although all structures had periods longer than the ones estimated by the EC8 expression, a few structures had shorter periods than the ones estimated by the NBCC expression. In general, the lower bound expressions given in EC8 and NBCC were found to provide over conservative estimates for most cases. In the second phase of the program, a simple hand method was developed to estimate the fundamental natural periods of CBFs designed to EC8. This method requires the use of inelastic top story drift ratio as a parameter to quantify stiffness characteristics. The drift ratios were extracted from the design pool developed as a part of the first phase and represented by simple mathematical relationships. Evaluation of the proposed method indicated that the method is accurate in providing estimates of the fundamental period. To safeguard against providing unconservative estimates, the method was modified to arrive at a new lower bound expression, which significantly improves the estimates compared with the ones provided by the existing expressions. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".