MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417256714 · doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2025.110888

Numerical analysis of perforated steel fuse in timber-braced frames

2025· article· en· W4417256714 on OpenAlexafffund
Hossein Daneshvar, Ying Hei Chui

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFuse (electrical)Numerical analysisNumerical modelsFinite element methodComputer simulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inherently brittle nature of timber limits its effectiveness in seismic applications, particularly in high-rise structures where ductility is essential for energy dissipation. Although timber-braced frames (TBFs) offer a potential solution, current design standards lack specific provisions for their implementation. Unlike steel bracing, which relies on buckling in compression and yielding in tension to improve system ductility, timber bracing requires well-designed connections that yield at the brace ends to dissipate energy, while the brace itself remains elastic. One practical approach to achieving this involves integrating yielding fuses, such as perforated steel plates, to enhance ductility and localize damage in replaceable components during seismic events. This study investigates the role of perforated steel plates as seismic fuses in TBFs, focusing on flexural yielding mechanisms, particularly through long slot-shaped perforations. A comprehensive numerical parametric study was conducted to assess key factors influencing the performance of these plates. Results indicate that increasing the perforation length to 100 mm improves the ultimate deformation up to 26 mm but reduces load capacity. However, this reduction can be mitigated by increasing the number of link elements. By optimizing both slot length and the number of links, a 50 % increase in ultimate deformation was achieved without compromising load capacity compared to previous studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructuresSame topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207