Suitability of frames with intentionally eccentric braces as the seismic-force-resisting system of high-rise buildings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Frame with Intentionally Eccentric Braces (FIEB) is a novel seismic-force-resisting system (SFRS) that overcomes several of the limitations of the widely adopted Concentrically Braced Frame (CBF), namely those related to its high elastic stiffness and marginal inelastic stiffness. Recent numerical studies have shown that, in comparison to equivalent CBFs, low- and midrise FIEBs offer an improved structural response to earthquake loading at a reduced cost owing to their significant post-elastic stiffness and to the better control over the overstrength. Another presumed advantage of FIEBs is that the stability of tall buildings under seismic action could be ensured through design by selecting the eccentric braces so that their post-elastic stiffness at each storey at the expected displacement is greater than the negative geometric stiffness, thus preventing the overshooting of storey drift demands due to the P-Δ effects. Moreover, the fact that a portion of the cross-section of the bracing members remains in the elastic range as they engage in plastic energy dissipation provides the frame with partial self-centering capability, further enhancing its stability. In this article, the suitability of FIEBs as the SFRS of high-rise buildings is investigated. 40-, 30-, and 20-storey model buildings, located in Vancouver, BC, are designed employing a revision of a displacement-based design procedure previously developed by the authors, and their seismic performance is assessed numerically through Non-Linear Response History Analysis (NLRHA). The results show that the so designed FIEBs exhibit a satisfactory response to ground motions, including those from long duration subduction earthquakes, suggesting that the FIEB system is indeed adequate for use in high-rise buildings.
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".