Evaluation of Simplified and State-of-the-Art Analysis Procedures for Steel Frame Buildings Equipped with Supplemental Damping Devices Based on E-Defense Full-Scale Shake Table Tests
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper summarizes a number of key findings that affect the use of linear and nonlinear analysis procedures for the seismic evaluation of steel frame buildings with supplemental damping devices and in particular, buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) and nonlinear viscous dampers (NVDs). The assessment is based on a comparison of various engineering demand parameters (EDPs) with experimental data obtained from a series of full-scale shaking table tests of a five-story steel building equipped with BRBs and NVDs. It is shown that: (1) there is no clear advantage between three-dimensional (3D) and two-dimensional (2D) analyses in the prediction of the dynamic behavior of regular plan view steel frame buildings regardless of the damper type; (2) incorporating the brace and nonlinear viscous damper axial flexibility in the analytical model of the test structure with NVDs significantly improves the overall numerical predictions; and (3) the current effective damping ratio recommended by ASCE 41-13 as part of linear static procedures for the evaluation of frame buildings with BRBs or NVDs may not be conservative enough. A new performance-based design tool called performance-spectra (P-Spectra) is able to reliably predict the EDPs of interest. The P-Spectra tool is also able to validate the efficiency of various damper solutions on the dynamic performance of the test structure. It is demonstrated that P-Spectra can be employed to predict estimates of potential residual deformations that traditional linear and nonlinear static procedures cannot.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it