Demands on nonstructural components in buildings with controlled rocking braced frames
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Controlled Rocking Braced Frames (CRBFs) have been developed as a high‐performance seismic force resisting system that can self‐center after an earthquake and avoid structural damage. A CRBF is designed to uplift and rock on its foundation, and this response is controlled using prestressing and energy dissipation devices that are engaged by uplift. Although CRBFs have been shown to have desirable structural performance, a comprehensive assessment of this system must also consider the performance of nonstructural components, which have a significant impact on the safety and economic viability of the system. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the demands on nonstructural components in buildings with CRBFs in comparison to demands in a reference codified system, taken here as a buckling restrained braced frame (BRBF), as well as to identify which design parameters influence these demands. The responses of various types of nonstructural components, including anchored components, stocky unanchored components that slide, and slender unanchored components that rock, are determined using a cascading analysis approach, where absolute floor accelerations generated from nonlinear response history analyses of each system are used as input for computing the responses of nonstructural components. The results show that the downside of maintaining elastic behavior of the CRBF members is, in general, larger demands on nonstructural components compared to the BRBF system. These demands are not highly influenced by impact during rocking or by the supplemental energy dissipation provided, as the vibration of the CRBF in its higher modes is primarily responsible for the higher 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it