Seismic Resilience and Design Factors of Inline Seismic Friction Dampers (ISFDs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While damping devices can provide supplemental damping to mitigate building vibration due to wind or earthquake effects, integrating them into the design is more complex. For example, the Canadian code does not provide building designs with inline friction dampers. The objective of this present article was to study the overstrength, ductility, and response modification factors of concrete frame buildings with inline friction dampers in the Canadian context. For that purpose, a set of four-, eight-, and fourteen-story ductile concrete frames with inline seismic friction dampers, designed based on the 2015 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC), was considered. The analyses included pushover analysis in determining seismic characteristics and dynamic response history analysis using twenty-five ground motion records to assess the seismic performance of the buildings equipped with inline seismic friction dampers. The methodology considered diagonal braces, including different 6 m and 8 m span lengths. The discussion covers the prescribed design values for overstrength, ductility, and response modification factors, as well as the performance assessment of the buildings. The results revealed that increasing the height of the structure and reducing the span length increases the response modification factors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".