Incremental dynamic analysis of steel frames equipped with NiTi shape memory alloy braces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY This paper determines the seismic performance of four‐storey concentrically braced frames equipped with either steel buckling‐restrained braces or buckling‐restrained superelastic shape memory alloy (SMA) braces through incremental dynamic analysis. The incremental dynamic analysis technique is used to examine the behaviour of four‐storey braced frames with four different bracing configurations (including diagonal, split‐X, chevron‐V and inverted‐V) under 20 different ground motion records. The study reveals a satisfactory performance at the design intensity level for both types of braced frames. The results show that the SMA braces lead to a uniform distribution of inelastic response over the height of the buildings, as well as mitigating seismic response in terms of maximum inter‐storey drift and residual roof displacement. By comparing the responses of SMA and buckling‐restrained braced frames under higher intensities of earthquake loading, it is found that the SMA braces can be more beneficial especially under severe ground motion excitations. Copyright © 2014 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".