Seismic evaluation of friction spring‐based self‐centering braced frames based on life‐cycle cost
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent decades, a variety of self‐centering braces (SCBs) have been developed to address the limitations of conventional frames by decreasing residual drift due to earthquakes. However, the initial construction cost of self‐centering (SC) structures is expected to be higher and the study about its cost‐effectiveness over the life‐cycle span is limited. This paper presents a seismic life‐cycle cost evaluation of emerging friction spring‐based self‐centering braced frames (SCB‐Fs) compared with traditional buckling restrained braced frames (BRB‐Fs) when an existing structure is upgraded. Particular focus is on the effect of residual deformation, initial construction cost, and high fatigue performance of the SCB. Following the performance‐based design of the SCB‐F and BRB‐F, system‐level analyses are conducted. Numerical results of case‐study buildings indicate that the total expected annual loss ( EAL ) of the BRB‐F increases by approximately three times when the effect of residual deformation is considered, while its effect on the total EAL of the SCB‐F is negligible. Besides, the superior performance of the SCB‐F compared to BRB‐F is highlighted by a substantial reduction in EAL induced by earthquakes. In addition, the acceleration‐related seismic losses of SCB‐F constitute approximately 44% of the total EAL . Its contribution is significantly larger in the case of the SCB‐F compared to the BRB‐F. From the perspective of economic benefit, increasing the structural life‐cycle span is beneficial to the SCB‐F compared to the BRB‐F. The high fatigue performance of the SCB is favorable to increase the economic benefit of the SCB‐F, especially when the reduction of repair time is considered. The economic benefit of the SCB‐F compared to the BRB‐F is highly related to the initial construction cost. Taking the 100 years as an expected life‐cycle span, the high initial construction cost of the SCB‐F would not be paid off when the unit cost of the SCB is about 2.1 times that of the BRB.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it