NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF INELASTIC CYCLIC RESPONSE OF HSS BRACES UPON FRACTURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concentrically braced frames (CBFs) with a tension-compression bracing system dissipate hysteretic energy when braces yield in tension and buckle in compression, whereas the hysteretic response of hallow structural section (HSS) braces varies with brace slenderness, width-to-thickness ratio, and yield strength. Modelling the nonlinear response of braces upon the fracture requires an assigned brace fracture model and implicitly calibrated input material parameters. The selected brace fracture models are those that are compatible to nonlinear analysis and fiber-based elements formulation suited to OpenSees framework. To replicate the brace response, nonlinear beam-column elements that encompass distributed plasticity and discretized fiber cross-sections were used, whereas to simulate brace fracture, the strain fatigue model was considered. In this study, in order to predict the failure strain for a single reversal value that is required as input parameter in the strain fatigue model, regression analysis was employed and the proposed equation was given for square HSS braces and validated against experimental test results for a wide range of brace slenderness ratios, 50 kL/r 150 and types of displacement loading history. The predicted failure strain value is expressed in terms of slenderness ratio, width-to-thickness ratio and yield strength of steel. Comparisons to existing brace fracture models, such as the strain-range and end-rotation of braces at fracture, are provided. All aforementioned brace fracture models were evaluated against experimental tests results, while replicating fourteen specimens that were found in the literature.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".