Seismic Performance of Eccentrically Braced Frames Designed According to Canadian Seismic Provisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eccentrically braced frames (EBFs) are very effective lateral load resisting systems against earthquakes because of their hybrid behavior that includes great stiffness corresponding to the bracing actions, and considerable ductility owing to the inelastic activity of a small part of the floor beam called link. Current capacity design approach of EBFs is to confine the inelastic behavior of the frame primarily to the link such that other members remain essentially in elastic range. Limited research works are available in the literature studying the behavior of multi-storey EBFs designed according to the current Canadian seismic provisions. This thesis was aimed to study seismic performance of EBFs through nonlinear time history analysis (NLTHA) of three 4-, 8- and 14-storey chevron eccentrically braced frames. The selected EBFs were subjected to real and artificial ground motion records scaled to match the response spectrum of Vancouver. All the EBFs, designed according to current capacity design provisions, exhibited excellent seismic performance in terms of stiffness, strength, and ductility. It was observed that the inelastic link rotations of all EBFs were lower than the design limit of 0.08 rad, except for the two upper floors in 14-storey EBF where the link rotation slightly exceeded the limit. Seismic analysis also showed that maximum inelastic link shear forces exceeded the values recommended in design for many earthquake records. \nAlthough NLTHA can precisely estimate structural seismic responses, it requires high computational demands making it impractical for engineering design offices. On the other hand, the conventional pushover analysis does not consider contributions of higher modes to the structural responses and thus it often does not provide good estimation of seismic responses for taller buildings. Capacity-Spectrum Method (CSM) and modal pushover analysis (MPA) are two simple nonlinear static methods that have been proposed and recently used for seismic performance evaluation of few lateral load-resisting systems. This research further studies the application of CSM and MPA as alternatives for rigorous NLTHA to estimate seismic performance parameters of EBFs. The three selected EBFs were analyzed using MPA and CSM and the results were compared with nonlinear seismic analysis results. It was observed that both CSM and MPA predicted the peak top displacements of EBFs with sufficient accuracy.
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 | 0.001 | 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".