Seismic retrofit of low‐rise steel buildings in Canada using rocking steel braced frames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This article examines the use of rocking steel braced frames for the retrofit of existing seismically deficient steel building structures. Rocking is also used to achieve superior seismic performance to reduce repair costs and disruption time after earthquakes. The study focuses on low‐rise buildings for which re‐centring is solely provided by gravity loads rather than added post‐tensioning elements. Friction energy dissipative (ED) devices are used to control drifts. The system is applied to 2‐storey and 3‐storey structures located in 2 seismically active regions of Canada. Firm ground and soft soil conditions are considered. The seismic performance of the retrofit scheme is evaluated using nonlinear dynamic analysis and ASCE 41‐13. For all structures, rocking permits to achieve immediate occupancy performance under 2% in 50 years seismic hazard if the braces and their connections at the building's top storeys are strengthened to resist amplified forces due to higher mode response. Base shears are also increased due to higher modes. Impact at column bases upon rocking induces magnified column forces and vertical response in the gravity system. Friction ED is found more effective for drift control than systems with ring springs or bars yielding in tension. Drifts are sufficiently small to achieve position retention performance for most nonstructural components. Horizontal accelerations are generally lower than predicted from ASCE 41 for regular nonrocking structures. Vertical accelerations in the gravity framing directly connected to the rocking frame are however higher than those predicted for ordinary structures. Vertical ground motions have limited effect on frame response.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".