Dynamic and equivalent static procedures for capacity design of controlled rocking steel braced frames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Controlled rocking steel braced frames (CRSBFs) have been proposed as a low‐damage seismic force resisting system with reliable self‐centring capabilities. Vertical post‐tensioning tendons are designed to self‐centre the system after rocking, and energy dissipation may be provided to limit the peak displacements. The post‐tensioning and energy dissipation can be designed using simple methods that rely primarily on the first‐mode response. However, the frame member forces are highly influenced by the higher‐mode response, resulting in more complex methods to design the frame members. This paper examines previous proposals and also proposes two new capacity design methods for CRSBFs. The first is a dynamic procedure that requires a truncated response spectrum analysis on a model of the frame with modified boundary conditions to consider the rocking behaviour. The second is an equivalent static method that does not require any modifications to the elastic frame model, instead using theory‐based lateral force distributions to consider the higher modes of the rocking structure. Neither method requires empirical calibration. The dynamic procedure is used to design two sets of CRSBFs with three, six, nine, twelve and eighteen stories, one set using a response modification factor of R = 8 and the other using up to R = 20. Based on the results of 800 nonlinear time history analyses, both methods are generally more accurate than the previous capacity design methods and at least as simple to implement. Finally, the displacement results suggest that taller CRSBFs designed using could still limit interstorey drifts to approximately 2.5% at the maximum considered earthquake level in the cases considered. Copyright © 2016 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".