Shake table test of a two‐story steel building seismically retrofitted using gravity‐controlled rocking braced frame system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article describes a shake table test program that was conducted to investigate the seismic behavior of a half‐scale two‐story gravity‐controlled rocking braced steel frame building. In this system, braced frame columns are designed to uplift from the foundation under severe earthquakes to reduce the seismic force demands on the frame members. Self‐centering capacity is solely provided by the gravity loads carried by the rocking frame. Energy dissipative devices are added at the base of the braced frame columns to control drifts. The system can be used for new structures as well as the retrofit of seismically deficient structures. In the test program, the specimen represented a gravity‐controlled rocking frame that had been proposed for seismic retrofit in a previous study. The test structure was subjected to ground motions expected for two site classes in two seismically active regions in Canada. Three different energy dissipative devices located at the rocking interface were studied: friction, friction spring dampers, and steel bars yielding in tension and elastically buckling in compression. The focus of the tests was on peak axial loads in the columns and additional moments and shears in the beams resulting from column impact upon rocking. Axial loads in the braces and columns from higher mode response were also examined. The tests revealed significant increases in beam forces due to column impacts. Large axial forces due to the second vibration mode response were measured in the second story braces. A numerical model is proposed to accurately predict the measured force 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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".