Large-Scale Experimental Testing and Numerical Modeling of Floor-to-Frame Connections for Controlled Rocking Steel Braced Frames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Controlled rocking steel braced frames (CRSBFs) are low-damage lateral force resisting systems that mitigate structural damage through a controlled rocking mechanism. Critical to the safety and low-damage nature of these systems are the floor-to-frame connections that allow the CRSBF to rock without imposing the associated uplifts on the adjacent gravity framing. This paper introduces three potential connection details through which the seismic forces are transferred to the CRSBF as the primary lateral force resisting system. The connections were tested at 60% scale between a one-story CRSBF subassembly and representative tributary gravity framing, with inertial and restoring forces simulated using hydraulic actuators for cyclic static testing. The experimental results show that all three connections are able to transfer the necessary loads while undergoing the displacements that are expected during a large earthquake, with some differences in the resistance that develops. These results are complimented by numerical simulations that are shown to be in good agreement. Design recommendations for the three proposed connections are also presented.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".