Seismic response and design of steel multi-tiered concentrically braced frames of the conventional construction category in moderate seismic regions of Eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the seismic behaviour of steel multi-tiered concentrically braced frames (MT-CBFs) of the conventional construction category (Type CC) in moderate seismic regions of eastern Canada and proposes a new seismic design method for such structures. A total of 32 prototype MT-CBFs part of a single-storey building are selected and designed in accordance with the 2019 Canadian steel design standard (CSA S16-19) provisions for Type CC structures, excluding the design requirements prescribed for frames taller than 15 m, namely the amplification of seismic forces varying by the frame height and the amplification of the column factored seismic force. Nonlinear response history analyses are then performed to examine their seismic response. The results confirmed that tiers experience limited lateral deformation, intermediate horizontal struts are required between tiers, and columns are subjected to combined axial force and bi-axial bending, which in some cases led to column buckling. The results are used to propose a new seismic design method in the framework of CSA S16.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".