MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313240771 · doi:10.1002/tal.2002

Experimental evaluation of composite and non‐composite columns and braces in special concentrically braced frames

2022· article· en· W4313240771 on OpenAlex
Samira Ebrahimi, Seyed Mehdi Zahrai

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringSquare (algebra)Cross section (physics)Ductility (Earth science)BucklingStiffnessDissipationComposite numberMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite materialGeometryPhysicsMathematicsCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Hollow structural section (HSS) and concrete‐filled tube (CFT) cross‐sections have been widely employed in the columns and braces of special concentrically braced frames (SCBFs). Square‐HSS cross‐section widely used in multistory frames is filled with concrete and converted to square‐CFT cross‐section to enhance the behavior of this cross‐section. However, some investigations indicated that circular‐HSS cross‐section filled with concrete (circular‐CFT) showed better behavior in comparison with square‐CFT cross‐section due to more uniform and larger concrete confinement in circular‐CFT cross‐section. The current study was experimentally undertaken to evaluate (1) the seismic performance and the global and local hysteresis responses of HSS and CFT members with various cross‐section shapes from initial elastic range to collapse in the system level of multistory SCBFs, (2) the behavioral differences between square cross‐section and circular cross‐section, and (3) the behavioral differences between HSS cross‐sections and CFT cross‐sections employed in the columns and braces of SCBFs. Four full‐scale one‐bay, two‐story SCBFs with four various cross‐sections, namely, square‐HSS, circular‐HSS, square‐CFT, and circular‐CFT, for columns and braces were subjected to cyclic lateral loading. Evaluating base shear–roof drift hysteretic loops of SCBF specimens demonstrated that SCBF specimens with CFT columns and braces (CFT‐SCBFs) experienced respectively around 107%, 58%, 28%, and 152% higher stiffness, post‐yielding and post‐buckling strengths, ductility, and energy dissipation capacity than SCBF specimens with HSS columns and braces (HSS‐SCBF). In addition, the experimental observations indicated that CFT braces experienced local buckling initiation, crack initiation, and fracture at respectively 2.22, 2.35, and 2.32 times of roof drifts of those exhibited by HSS braces. Moreover, assessing braces with various cross‐sections indicated that CFT braces showed an increase in compression strength, post‐buckling strength, compression axial deformation, and out‐of‐plane buckling approximately by 83%, 152%, 127%, and 100%, respectively, in comparison with HSS braces. Finally, square‐HSS/CFT braces sustained rupture propagation better than circular‐HSS/CFT braces.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · 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