Effectiveness of Design Procedures in Counteracting Second Order Effects in Steel Moment Resisting Frames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The seismic response of structures is always influenced by second order (P–Δ) effects. The importance of these effects becomes significant when the structure experiences large plastic deformations. Seismic codes indicate that P–Δ effects may be counteracted by means of an increase of the lateral strength required by a first order analysis, but the expressions of the Strength Amplification Factor (SAF) given in codes are often criticized by researchers. This paper proposes and validates a formulation of the SAF for Moment Resisting Frames (MRFs), which is a generalization of that derived in the past by some of the authors based on the response of SDOF systems. To this end, in a first stage of the research a set of steel MRFs is designed and analyzed neglecting P–Δ effects. The seismic response is determined by nonlinear static and incremental dynamic analyses and the mean annual frequency of exceedance of the Significant Damage (SD) and Near Collapse (NC) limit states is computed. In a second stage, each structure is re-designed and analyzed considering P–Δ effects. P–Δ effects are counteracted in design according to provisions of European, American and Canadian seismic codes or according to other formulations proposed in literature, such as that proposed by Bernal and that proposed by the authors. The accuracy of the design provisions accounting for P–Δ effects is determined by comparing the response of the structures designed in the first and in the second stages.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".