MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999946715 · doi:10.1061/9780784482223.010

Dynamic Analysis of Steel Multi-Tiered Special Concentrically Braced Frames

2019· article· en· W2999946715 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

VenueStructures Congress 2019 · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institute of Steel Construction
KeywordsBraced frameComputer scienceStructural engineeringEngineeringFrame (networking)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Steel multi-tiered concentrically braced frames (MT-CBFs) are commonly used in North America as lateral load-resisting systems of tall single-story buildings. MT-CBFs are composed of multiple tiers of diagonal braces stacked on top of each other along the height of a story. Past research showed that MT-CBF columns designed in accordance with the 2010 U.S. Seismic Provisions are prone to column buckling due to non-uniform distribution of inelastic seismic demands along the frame height. Special design provisions have been introduced in the current AISC Seismic Provisions to address limit states and ensure columns remain stable under seismic load effects. Nevertheless, the recent improvements lack full-scale experimental testing and comprehensive finite element simulations to validate the proposed design requirements further and improve design provisions. In this paper, the current seismic design provisions for multi-tiered special concentrically braced frames (MT-SCBFs) are evaluated using the finite element method. A two-tiered SCBF was first designed in accordance with the 2010 and 2016 AISC Seismic Provisions. A detailed finite element model of the frame was then created using the Abaqus program. The model was used to perform nonlinear history response analyses. The analysis results showed that the inelastic deformations in the frame, designed as per the 2010 AISC Seismic Provisions, are not uniformly distributed but rather concentrated in one of the tiers, which leads to column yielding and buckling. Whereas, the current design method led to distributing the frame’s inelastic deformation along the frame height. Furthermore, it was found that column in-plane flexural demands are overestimated when the current seismic provisions are employed; however, the out-of-plane flexural demand of columns exceeded the code-specified demands.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.216 · 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