Equivalent Energy Design Procedure for Earthquake Resilient Fused Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been observed in recent earthquakes worldwide that even countries with modern building codes suffer significant structural damages because earthquake energy is dissipated through inelastic deformation of structural components. Unrecoverable damages and prolonged downtime can be minimized using earthquake resilient structures, where earthquake energy is dissipated using specially designed and detailed structural fuses. Fuses are decoupled from gravity system and can be replaced efficiently. Earthquake‐resilient fused structures cannot be routinely designed unless there is a simple design procedure. This paper presents an equivalent energy design procedure (EEDP) for the seismic design of fused structures. EEDP allows designers to select different performance objectives at different earthquake shaking intensities. EEDP also allows engineers to select structural members to achieve the desired structural period, strength, and deformation with simple hand calculations without iterations. This practical and efficient design procedure is illustrated via an earthquake resilient fused truss moment frame (FTMF). The nonlinear dynamic analysis result shows that the prototype FTMF can have controlled failure mechanism and drifts selected by the engineer at multiple earthquake shaking intensities.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".