Collapse risk of controlled rocking steel braced frames with different post‐tensioning and energy dissipation designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Controlled rocking steel braced frames (CRSBFs) are low‐damage self‐centring lateral force resisting systems. Previous studies have shown that designing the energy dissipation (ED) and post‐tensioning (PT) in CRSBFs using a response modification factor of R=8 can prevent collapse of structures during earthquakes beyond the design level. However, designers have unique control over the hysteretic behaviour of the system, even after the response modification factor is selected. Additionally, recent studies have suggested that CRSBFs could also be designed using R>8 while still satisfying performance limits. This paper examines how the response modification factor and the design of the ED and PT influence the collapse performance of CRSBFs with three and six storeys where collapse occurs because of over‐rotation of the base rocking joint. In addition, the influence of using an additional rocking joint above the base to mitigate higher‐mode forces is evaluated for a 12‐storey frame. A total of 18 different designs are considered for the three buildings using different ED and PT design parameters, including different response modification factors. A suite of 44 ground motions is scaled until at least 50% of the records cause collapse, and fragility curves are generated using the truncated incremental dynamic analysis curves. The results from two different assessment methodologies show that the parameters selected have a marked influence on the collapse performance of a CRSBF. Nevertheless, even CRSBFs designed using R>8 or without supplemental ED can have acceptably low probabilities of collapse, provided that the frame members are designed to remain elastic. Copyright © 2017 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 | 0.001 | 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".