Seismic Evaluation of Multi-Panel Steel Concentrically Braced Frames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lateral load resisting systems in tall single-storey steel buildings typically consist of vertical braced frames with two or more bracing panels stacked between the ground and the roof levels. This bracing configuration with bracing members intersecting columns between ground and roof levels raise several concerns regarding their inelastic response under seismic loading. This paper presents a study on the seismic design and nonlinear seismic performance of 3-and 4-panel steel concentrically braced frames designed according to the current Canadian code provisions for steel structures. Dynamic nonlinear time history analysis is conducted on using the Opensees platform to assess the seismic performance of the frames, with particular interest in the seismic force demand imposed on the columns and the buckling behaviour of the columns. The results show that nonlinear response in the frames may not be uniformly distributed over the building height, which leads to high ductility demand in the braces and in-plane bending moments in the columns. No significant out-of-plane bending moments are induced in the columns as a result of brace buckling and yielding. © 2012, International Association for Earthquake Engineering. All rights reserved.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".