Response of perforated steel plates to different reversed cyclic loading protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the impact of loading protocol on the cyclic performance of perforated steel plates used as seismic fuses in timber connections was evaluated. Designed to localize damage, protect timber members, and enhance ductility through energy dissipation, these plates exhibit a large reduction in deformation capacity under cyclic loading compared to monotonic loading, underscoring the importance of incorporating loading protocols into the design process. To address this need, a total of 28 full-size perforated plate fuses were tested under three cyclic loading protocols: i) ASTM E2126 Method B; ii) ASTM E2126 Method C; and iii) FEMA 461. The results demonstrated the dependency of fuse performance on the chosen loading protocol. Loaded under Method B, the connections achieved the highest ultimate deformation and energy dissipation, connections loaded under FEMA 461 exhibited the lowest values, and connections tested using Method C yielded intermediate results. For instance, the elliptical perforation reached 30 %, 22 %, and 18 % of the target deformation under Method B, Method C, and FEMA 461, respectively. The experimental findings were supported through numerical analysis. Consequently, the authors recommend adopting Method C for future yielding fuse tests, as it provides a balanced response in terms of ultimate deformation and cumulative energy dissipation. Furthermore, the reference deformation for Method C can be tailored based on the damage observed under monotonic loading conditions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".