TOWARDS CANADIAN DESIGN GUIDANCE FOR CONTROLLED ROCKING BRACED FRAMES: LOW-RISE BUILDING EXAMPLE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern earthquake engineering practice relies on the inelastic behaviour of select elements within the lateral force-resisting system to achieve seismic energy dissipation and prevent building collapse. These structures are therefore susceptible to permanent structural damage and residual drifts after design-level seismic events. Controlled rocking braced frames (CRBFs) have been shown to control seismic damage and limit residual displacement by allowing selected CRBF columns to intentionally uplift. Despite the promise of CRBFs, they are not included in any international design code, and New Zealand is currently the only country in the world that has a guide for practitioners looking to implement the recommendations from research. To address this gap, this paper will offer a step towards design guidance for CRBFs that are compliant with Canadian design codes and standards, namely CSA S16 and the National Building Code. First, a design methodology is presented with a performance target of matching or improving code-compliant buildings. The design steps are then implemented to design a representative low-rise building with CRBFs as the primary lateral force resisting system. Nonlinear response history analysis is performed using models of the archetype building during ground motions that are selected and scaled with reference to the design spectrum. The performance indicators determined from these analyses are compared to the design objectives to assess the effectiveness of the design procedure. While the design guidance presented in this paper is specifically formulated for a Canadian context, the research will be relevant to researchers and practitioners in other nations as they establish their code-compliant approaches to designing and constructing CRBFs for improved seismic resilience.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".