Comparative Assessment of the Seismic Behavior of Reduced‐Core Length and Conventional Buckling‐Restrained Bracing Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The buckling‐restrained braced frame (BRBF) is an appropriate lateral system for resisting seismic excitations. This system has high lateral stiffness and stable hysteretic loops mainly due to restraining global buckling of the brace core under compression. Even though BRB is an improved version of the conventional brace, it is not yet an ideal system since there are deficiencies regarding the performance of this system. Notable decrease of lateral stiffness after yielding of the BRB cores and significant residual drifts are instances of the deficiencies in BRBFs, which have been recognized as problematic and costly in recent earthquakes. Reducing the core length of the BRB can effectively increase the lateral stiffness as well as decreasing the drifts and residual drifts of the structure without any increase in the cross‐sectional area of the core. In this research nonlinear static pushover analyses have been conducted on 4 buildings including 4 and 9 story structures with conventional and reduced core length BRBs with diagonal and inverted chevron brace configuration. Both pinned and rigid end‐connections were considered for the beams in the braced bays. A 4‐story dual SMRF‐BRBF was included for better assessment of the contribution of frame action to the structural behavior. The results indicate that the reduced length BRBs have much better seismic behavior. Furthermore, they are replaceable, repairable and more cost‐efficient compared to conventional BRBs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".