Cyclic performance and fracture of wide flanged concentrically steel braced frames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concentrically braced steel frames (CBFs) are often used in buildings to resist lateral loads induced by wind and seismic excitations. Large-size wide-flange (WF) steel brace members could be selected and used in these frames. In the current study, a finite element model (FEM) with a strain-based fracture rule is presented to investigate the performance of a large-size WF brace member in single-storey CBF with different sizes of beams and columns when subjected to reversed axial displacements. The effects of restraining the far ends of the beam bottom-flange, increasing the thickness of tab-plates, increasing the number of bolts used to connect the tab-plates to the web of the beam, and the location of the work-point along the brace with respect the beam-column assembly, on the hysteresis response of the frame are investigated. Results suggest that it may be advantageous to reduce the number of bolts and to increase the bolt size to allow for an increase in the thickness of the tab-plates to resist the extreme rotational demand in high seismic regions, thereby preventing fracture of the weld between the tab-plates and the column flange.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".