Design and full‐scale experimental evaluation of a seismically endurant steel buckling‐restrained brace system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This paper presents the results of 12 full‐scale tests on buckling‐restrained brace (BRB) specimens. A simple‐to‐fabricate all‐steel encasing joined by high‐strength bolts was used as the buckling‐restrainer mechanism. Steel BRBs offer significant energy dissipation capability through nondeteriorating inelastic response of an internal ductile core. However, seismic performance of BRBs is characterized by interaction between several factors. In this experimental study, the effects of core‐restrainer interfacial condition, gap size, loading history, bolt spacing, and restraining capacity are evaluated. A simple hinge detail is introduced at the brace ends to reduce the flexural demand on the framing components. Tested specimens with bare steel contact surfaces exhibited satisfactory performance under the American Institute of Steel Construction qualification test protocol. The BRBs with friction‐control self‐adhesive polymer liners and a graphite‐based dry lubricant displayed larger cumulative inelastic ductility under large‐amplitude cyclic loading, exceeding current code minimum requirements. The BRB system is also examined under repeated fast‐rate seismic deformation history. This system showed significant ductility capacity and remarkable endurance under dynamic loading. Furthermore, performance is qualified under long‐duration loading history from subduction zone's megathrust type of earthquake. Predictable and stable performance of the proposed hinge detail was confirmed by the test results. Internally imposed normal thrust on the restrainer is measured using series of instrumented bolts. Weak‐ and strong‐axis buckling responses of the core are examined. Higher post‐yield stiffness was achieved when the latter governed, which could be advantageous to the overall seismic response of braced frames incorporating BRBs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".