Response modification factors for steel buckling restrained braced frames designed as per the 2010 National Building Code of Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper evaluates the overstrength, ductility, and response modification factors for low to mid-rise buckling restrained braced frames (BRBFs) designed as per the 2010 National Building Code of Canada. In addition to nonlinear static pushover analyses, dynamic time history analyses are performed to assess the seismic performance of four-, six-, and eight-story BRBFs. Different bracing configurations, including chevron (inverted-V) and split-X braces, are considered for the building frames with varied frame span lengths of 6 m and 8 m. The results confirm that the prescribed design values for overstrength and ductility factors provide reasonable estimations of the lower bound for these factors. The response modification factor obtained in this study ranged from 4.8 to 6 for different frames. The results also indicate that the response modification factor decreases with the increase of story height and span length. Moreover, bracing configurations may slightly affect the response modification factor for BRBFs.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".