Second‐Order Effects on EBF Yielding Links: New Design Equations for Overstrength and Capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous studies have shown that links in eccentrically braced frames (EBFs) can be subjected to axial loads. Both shear and flexural links exhibit increased shear strength under tension and a reduction in shear capacity under compression. While AISC 341 and CSA‐S16 provide equations for accounting for these effects, these equations are primarily based on the yielding interaction between normal and shear stresses, in shear links, and section‐level axial‐flexure (P‐M) interaction, in flexural links, without considering second‐order effects. Although the former mechanisms could affect the capacity of shear links, their impact is less significant. For flexural links, the P‐M interaction is negligible for low axial load levels that are expected in EBF applications. The present study shows that axial load effects on links in EBFs are primarily due to second‐order effects. A detailed discussion on quantifying axial loads in EBF links and their effects is provided, and new design equations are developed to account for such effects. The proposed equations are validated using previously done full‐scale experimental results and supplementary finite element analyses, resulting in significantly improved accuracy in predicting the axial load effects compared to existing design expressions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".