Shake Table Test of a Half-Scale 2-Storey Steel Building Seismically Retrofitted Using Rocking Braced Frame System
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article introduces a shake table test program that was conducted to investigate the response of a two-storey rocking braced frame for which self-centring capacity is provided solely by the gravity loads supported by the frame. The test specimen is a 0.5 scaled model of a prototype rocking frame that was studied for the retrofit of a seismically deficient steel structure. The main objectives of the test program were to study the effects of column uplift and impact on shear forces and moments in the beams connected to the columns. Higher mode effects on brace forces were also of interest. Three different energy dissipation mechanisms located at the rocking interface were examined for drift control: friction, ring spring dampers, and vertical steel bars yielding in tension and buckling in compression. By changing the seismic weight of the test specimen, tests could be conducted for structures located in two different seismic regions of Canada to study the effect of the signature of the ground motions. Increases in beam forces due to column uplift and impact, as predicted by previous numerical simulations, were confirmed by the tests. High axial loads induced by the second vibration mode were also measured in the second storey braces.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it