Comparative Study on Seismic Fragility Assessment of Self-Centering Energy-Absorbing Dual Rocking Core versus Buckling Restrained Braced Systems under Mainshock–Aftershock Sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A strong mainshock may cause several aftershocks within a short interval. These aftershocks can make buildings damaged during the mainshock more vulnerable to collapse. Hence, it is critical to study the seismic responses of a structure during aftershock events following a major shock. The focus of this work was to investigate the seismic fragility of an emerging high-performance seismic-resistant system—the self-centering energy-absorbing dual rocking core (SEDRC) system—considering mainshock–aftershock sequences, and to compare SEDRC with traditional systems. First, three- and six-story SEDRC systems were designed following the direct displacement-based design method to show comparable maximum interstory drifts compared with those of the three- and six-story benchmark buckling-restrained braced frames (BRBFs), respectively, under the design-basis earthquake excitations. Second, 30 as-recorded mainshock–aftershock sequences were selected. The dynamic analyses and incremental dynamic analyses (IDAs) were conducted to study the seismic responses of the four buildings with the mainshock inputs alone and the mainshock–aftershock sequence inputs. The analysis results show that the designed SEDRC systems and BRBFs can obtain comparable performance in limiting the maximum interstory drifts (MID) responses, whereas the SEDRC systems are more efficient in limiting the maximum residual interstory drifts (MRD). Moreover, the SEDRC systems perform much better than BRBFs in resisting structural collapse. As expected, the aftershocks would increase the MID, but may increase or decrease the MRD of the SEDRC systems and BRBFs. Finally, the seismic fragilities of the designed systems were further investigated on the basis of the results from the IDAs in a probabilistic framework using a joint probability density function with the consideration of both MID and MRD. The advantages of the SEDRC systems in achieving excellent seismic collapse-resistant and self-centering capacity were explored through probabilistic analyses.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".