Seismic performance of hybrid ductile‐rocking braced frame system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary A new hybrid ductile‐rocking seismic‐resistant design is proposed which consists of a code‐designed buckling‐restrained braced frame (BRBF) that yields along its height and also partially rocks on its foundation. The goal of this system is to cost‐effectively improve the performance of BRBFs, by reducing drift concentrations and residual deformations, while taking advantage of their large ductility and their reliable limit on seismic forces and accelerations along a building's height. A lock‐up device ensures that the full code‐compliant lateral strength can be achieved after a limited amount of column uplift, and supplemental energy dissipation elements are used to reduce the rocking response. This paper outlines the mechanics of the system and then presents analyses on rocking frames with both ductile and elastic braces in order to highlight the large higher mode demands on elastic rocking frames. A parametric study using nonlinear time‐history analysis of BRBF structures designed according to the proposed procedure for Los Angeles, California is then presented. This study investigates the system's seismic response and the effect of different energy dissipation element properties and allowable base rotation values before the lock‐up is engaged. Finally, the effect of vertical mass modeling on analysis results was investigated. These studies demonstrated that the hybrid ductile‐rocking system can in fact improve the global peak and residual deformation response as well as reduce brace damage. This enhanced performance could eliminate the need for expensive repairs or demolition that are otherwise to be expected for conventional ductile fixed base buildings that sustain severe damage.
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) | 0.003 | 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".