Pseudo‐dynamic and quasi‐static testing of hinged truss with all‐steel buckling‐restrained braces at base
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 Hinged truss with buckling‐restrained braces at base (HTBB) is composed of a rocking steel braced frame system and two replaceable all‐steel buckling‐restrained braces (BRBs) installed symmetrically on both sides at the bottom of the rocking steel braced frame. BRBs are used as hysteretic energy‐dissipating devices and damage is concentrated in BRBs. The rocking steel braced frame remains in an elastic state to control the deformation mode of the structure. Pseudodynamic testing and quasi‐static testing were conducted on a 1/3‐scale HTBB test specimen to investigate its seismic performance. The test program also includes the retrofitting process and replacement process. Pseudodynamic testing revealed that the HTBB effectively controlled the deformation pattern. The quasi‐static cyclic testing demonstrated that the system behaved in a ductile and stable manner with no strength degradation, even up to 2.5% roof drift. The damage was concentrated in the BRBs, and no damage to the hinged truss was observed throughout the testing. The failure was governed by the fracture of the BRBs. The effectiveness of the displacement‐controlled retrofitting solutions was verified and the function of the test specimen can be restored by replacing the damaged BRBs, which indicated that HTBB belongs to a resilient structural system. Finally, a finite‐element model was developed to simulate the seismic response of the test specimen. Comparisons showed good agreement between the numerical results and the pseudodynamic test results.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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