MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619184954 · doi:10.4231/d3v698c70

Reserve Capacity and Implications for Seismic Collapse Prevention for Low-Ductility Braced Frames in Moderate Seismic Regions

2014· article· en· W2619184954 on OpenAlexaff
Larry A. Fahnestock, Eric M. Hines, Robert Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenuePolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySeismologyDuctility (Earth science)Forensic engineeringEngineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there has been extensive research on achieving ductile behavior and robust performance for steel structures in high seismic regions, little is known about the behavior and performance for low-ductility steel structures that are prevalent in moderate seismic regions. The seismic lateral-force-resisting system recognized in ASCE 7 that is currently widely applied to steel structures in moderate seismic regions is the R = 3 system, where no ductile detailing is required. While not explicitly stated, the viability of an R = 3 system rests on the notion that there is some degree of reserve capacity within the system that allows design forces to be reduced when there is no ductile detailing. Reserve lateral strength, or reserve capacity, is defined as lateral force resistance that maintains structural stability after the primary lateral-force-resisting system has degraded. In general, previous studies have not investigated the global quantification of reserve capacity or local requirements for stiffness and strength of the elements comprising the reserve system. However, several potential sources of reserve capacity in these structures have been identified: connections in the gravity framing system, connections in the braced frame system, and column continuity. Another source of reserve capacity comes from within the braced frame system, in the event where a slotted HSS tube re-engages and bears upon the gusset plate in compression after the connecting fillet welds fracture in a seismic event. In this paper, the work of a multi-institution research group studying the behavior and performance of these low-ductility braced frames is presented. The research program includes connection and frame testing and analysis in conjunction with numerical simulations of building system seismic response. The following specific aspects of the research are discussed: (1) modeling and full-scale testing of beam-column gravity connections with angles; (2) large-scale testing of nonductile brace connection limit states; (3) large-scale testing of multi-story braced frames with nonductile limit states; (4) nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of buildings with nonductile braced frames. In all cases, quantifying reserve capacity and establishing the effect of reserve capacity on the system behavior are emphasized. These results provide a valuable resource for design of low-ductility steel braced frame systems to provide collapse prevention performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal)Same topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207