MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161958402 · doi:10.82308/27141

Conventional concentrically braced frames with I-shape braces and bolted brace connections

2021· dissertation· en· W7161958402 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chen Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBraceEurocodeEarthquake resistanceSeismic analysisDeformation (meteorology)BucklingBracing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In low and moderate seismic regions, low-ductility concentrically braced frames (CBFs) are widely used as the seismic force-resisting system for steel structures. Unlike high-ductility CBFs, the capacity-based design principle and additional seismic detailing are not required for such systems, which are referred to as conventional CBFs (CCBFs) in this study. In CCBFs, the brace-to-gusset connections are inherently weaker than the adjoining gusset plates and braces when loaded in tension. This occurs because both the gusset plates and the braces are most often selected based on their respective compressive buckling resistances, and hence, typically have a much greater resistance in tension. As such, brace connections are critical for the seismic behaviour and collapse prevention performance of CCBFs. However, brace connections have received little research attention because they are usually assumed to remain elastic in most capacity-based designs, and as such, their inelastic behaviour is not fully understood at a fundamental level. This is reflected in the different code provisions: in Canada, the seismic design force must be amplified by 1.5 for brace connections in CCBFs unless these connections are proven to be ductile as per CSA S16-19; in New Zealand, for connections in CCBFs, a structural performance factor of 1.0 is required, compared with 0.9 for structural members, which effectively increases the seismic design force demand on connections as per NZS 3404; no analogous requirements exist for CCBFs in the USA as per ANSI/AISC 341-16 or in Europe as per Eurocode 8.The inelastic behaviour of and the seismic deformation demand on CCBF brace connections were studied through a two-level numerical simulation approach, which is presented in this thesis. The bolted flange plate connection of the I-shape brace, which is a common design choice for CCBFs, was selected as the subject of this study.At the connection level, a high-fidelity finite element (FE) simulation procedure was developed for the bolted flange plate connection and validated against laboratory test results. The force transfer mechanism within the branches of the connection was characterized. Subsequently, a parametric study based on the validated numerical simulation procedure was carried out. Three key design parameters, namely, the gusset plate thickness, the flange lap plate thickness, and the web lap plate thickness, were varied to study their effects on both the compressive and tensile behaviour of the brace and the connection assembly. Various deformation mechanisms and failure modes were revealed under both compression and tension. Design recommendations are proposed with regards to attaining better deformation capacity.Based on the knowledge gained from the high-fidelity numerical simulations, a computationally efficient component-based modeling method was developed for the bolted brace connection. The connection was discretized into individual components, and modeled by means of organized springs, which each simulate the behaviour of a component. After validation against experimental test results, the component-based connection model was incorporated into a system-level numerical model for a series of prototype CCBFs. Through nonlinear static and dynamic structural analyses, the seismic behaviour and collapse prevention performance of CCBFs were studied. When loaded in tension, the brace connections deformed much more than the brace, and amplifying the design force by 1.5 was effective in reducing the seismic deformation demand on brace connections. In some cases, a secondary seismic force-resisting mechanism developed and prevented the system from collapse after the primary seismic force-resisting mechanism had failed

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Performance and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207