MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906309387 · doi:10.1002/eqe.3146

Seismic behavior of coupled steel plate shear walls with simple boundary frame connections

2018· article· en· W2906309387 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFaculty of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Alberta
KeywordsShear wallStructural engineeringSteel plate shear wallDissipationStiffnessHysteresisEngineeringSeismic loadingNonlinear systemPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The coupled steel plate shear wall (C‐SPSW) configuration has been investigated by researchers as a means of improving the overturning stiffness and architectural flexibility of SPSW structures. While C‐SPSWs have been shown to exhibit excellent seismic performance, the fabrication cost associated with the high number of moment‐resisting connections used in such systems is a potential detraction to their use as an economical solution. Past research has shown that the hysteresis response of SPSWs with simple frame connections is significantly pinched, and as such, most seismic codes prohibit their use in high seismic areas. However, when used in the C‐SPSW configuration, a dual system is formed in which the coupling beams not only improve resistance to overturning but also provide substantial lateral strength and energy dissipation capacity. This paper presents an exploration of the potential to improve the economy of C‐SPSWs by using the simple boundary frame connections. First, employing the principles of plastic analysis, an attempt is made to quantify the contribution of the coupling beams to the overall lateral load resistance of the system. Then, to evaluate the seismic performance of such C‐SPSW systems and allow for the comparison with that of the C‐SPSWs with rigid frames, several prototypes are designed and analyzed using a series of nonlinear response history and pushover analyses. The results indicated that the C‐SPSWs with simple boundary frames exhibited satisfactory seismic performance comparable with that of the C‐SPSWs with rigid frames under both the 10/50 and 2/50 hazard levels, while allowing for reduced fabrication costs.

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 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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.196 · 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