MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293368481 · doi:10.1002/eqe.3728

Seismic evaluation of friction spring‐based self‐centering braced frames based on life‐cycle cost

2022· article· en· W4293368481 on OpenAlexaff
Ruibin Zhang, Wang We, M. Shahria Alam

Bibliographic record

VenueEarthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsResidualStructural engineeringBraced frameAccelerationLife-cycle cost analysisBucklingDeformation (meteorology)Restoring forceReduction (mathematics)EngineeringSeismic analysisComputer scienceGeologyMathematicsReliability engineeringFrame (networking)TelecommunicationsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarthquake Engineering & Structural DynamicsSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207