Improving the Seismic Stability of Concentrically Braced Steel Frames
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
An analytical study was performed to examine the seismic stability of multi-story concentrically braced steel frames. The building height was varied from 4 to 16 stories and three braced frame systems were studied: conventional braced frames, buckling-restrained braced frames, and dual buckling-restrained braced frames. All structures were designed according to Canadian seismic provisions. Different force modification factors were used and both the equivalent static load procedure and the modal response spectrum analysis were considered in design. P-delta effects were accounted for in the design of some of the buildings. The performance of the various structures is evaluated and compared by means of incremental dynamic analysis. The results show that the potential for instability for conventional braced frames is higher for taller structures or when the design loads are reduced. Tall buckling-restrained braced frames were also found to be prone to dynamic instability. Dual buckling-restrained braced frames exhibit a more robust response and represent a promising solution for tall braced steel frames.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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