Seismic Performance of Steel Buildings with Braced Dual Configuration and Traditional Frame Systems through Nonlinear Collapse Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT \nSeismic Performance of Steel Buildings with Braced Dual Configuration and Traditional Frame Systems through Nonlinear Collapse Simulations \nYudong Wang \nTraditional concentrically braced frames, CBF, are stiff and provide limited to moderate ductility, while moment resisting frames, MRF, are able to dissipate seismic energy when undergoing large lateral displacements. However, these traditional earthquake resistant systems do not show uniformly distributed damage along the building height. Changes in structural proprieties during nonlinear hysteresis behaviour may lead to drift concentration and weak-storey response. Moreover, both traditional systems are susceptible to long-duration subduction earthquakes. \nThe pursuit of these issues led to the concept of utilizing multiple-resisting structural systems that act progressively so that the overall seismic resistance is not significantly reduced during long-duration earthquakes. The structural system consisting of a rigid braced frame that provides primary stable cyclic behavior and a moment frame acting as a backup system with good flexural behavior is the steel Braced Dual System studied herein. \nThe objectives of this study are: a) to investigate the seismic response of steel Braced Dual building from yielding to failure, as well as, to identify the types of failure mechanism; b) to assess the seismic response of Braced Dual System against the traditional MRFs and CBFs with moderate ductility through incremental dynamic analysis; c) to evaluate the effect of long duration subduction earthquakes versus crustal type earthquakes on these building systems through collapse safety criteria using FEMA P695 procedure and to assess the probability of exceeding defined performance levels using fragility analysis. \nTo carry out these objectives, detail numerical models were developed using the OpenSees framework. The prototype 8-storey office building is located on firm soil in Vancouver, B.C. and is subjected to two sets of crustal and subduction ground motions. Two traditional earthquake resistant systems (MD-CBF, MD-MRF) and the Braced Dual System are considered. Design is conducted according to NBCC2015 and CSA/S16-14. \nFrom nonlinear time history analysis, the following results are reported: for the Braced Dual System, two types of failure mechanism involving either one floor or two adjacent floors (in general the bottom floors) were identified which also involve flexural yielding of MRF beam of critical floors; the Braced Dual System provides larger ductility than the MD-CBF, shows significant increase of seismic resistant capacity for similar seismic demands, provides the largest collapse margin ratio and collapse safety capacity under both earthquake types. In addition, the building with Braced Dual System shows a progressive seismic behavior and a more uniform damage distribution along the building height. From fragility analysis resulted that at Collapse Prevention (CP) limit state, the Braced Dual System experiences 100% probability of exceedance after it was subjected to two times larger seismic demand than the MD-CBF or MD-MRF systems. All studied structural systems are sensitive to long duration subduction earthquake.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".