Shake-Table Tests of a Three-Storey Steel Structure with Resilient Slip-Friction Joints (RSFJ)

Ashkan Hashemi; Charles Clifton; Gregory MacRae; Liang-Jiu Jia; Nicholas Chan; Pierre Quenneville; Rajesh Dhakal; Soheil Assadi

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 23 references

Shake-Table Tests of a Three-Storey Steel Structure with Resilient Slip-Friction Joints (RSFJ)

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A three-storey steel building with Resilient Slip-Friction Joints self-centered after shaking up to 0.5g, with residual drifts below 0.03% in all three tested configurations.

desk verdict First full-building RSFJ shake-table data are valuable; the braced systems deliver, but the abstract overstates the MRF result. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03452 v1 pith:56MOGEIR submitted 2025-09-03 physics.app-ph

Nicholas Chan , Ashkan Hashemi , Soheil Assadi , Pierre Quenneville , Charles Clifton , Gregory MacRae , Rajesh Dhakal , Liang-Jiu Jia This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.app-ph

keywords resilientslip-frictionjointself-centeringshake-tabletestresidualdriftfrictiondampertension-onlybracetension-compressionmoment-resistingframe

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports the first full-scale shake-table tests of a three-storey steel building equipped with Resilient Slip-Friction Joints (RSFJ) in three lateral-load configurations: tension-only braces, tension-compression braces, and moment-resisting frame joints. Driven by the 1940 El Centro motion scaled up to about 0.5 g peak ground acceleration, all three configurations kept peak inter-storey drifts below 1.62% and returned essentially to plumb, with the largest measured residual drift at 0.03%. The authors claim this demonstrates that the RSFJ passively damps seismic vibrations and restores structures to their original, undeformed shape, avoiding the residual drift that makes many post-earthquake buildings uneconomical to repair. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that a single self-centering friction joint can serve as the damage-control device for multiple structural systems.

What carries the argument

The Resilient Slip-Friction Joint (RSFJ): a friction connection in which Belleville spring washers provide a restoring force, so the joint dissipates energy through friction when sliding and re-centers when the load reverses. It is used in three configurations—tension-only brace (TOB), tension-compression brace (TCB), and moment-resisting frame (MRF) bottom-flange joints—and the paper's case rests on the joint's measured slip behavior, the frame's modal properties, and the observed residual drift.

What would settle it

Repeat the test sequence with the Belleville springs mechanically locked out of the RSFJs in one brace configuration (e.g., the TCB); if the residual drifts still do not exceed 0.03%, the self-centering is elastic frame behavior, not the RSFJ restoring force.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the RSFJ, a friction joint with Belleville springs that slips at a designed force and then pushes the joint back to center, can be integrated into three different seismic systems and still deliver self-centering at full structural scale. On the shake table, the TOB and TCB braces engaged the joints and damped the motion, while the MRF barely slipped (maximum RSFJ deformation 1.9 mm), so its response was nearly elastic. Residual drifts never exceeded 0.03% in any test, well under the 0.2% out-of-plumb threshold for new construction. Floor accelerations peaked at 0.67 g unidirectionally and at 0.95 g during bidirectional torsion, so the paper's claim is specifical

Load-bearing premise

The as-built test structure's measured periods and joint deformations matched the design intent closely enough that the observed self-centering can be attributed to the RSFJs; for the MRF this assumption visibly fails, since the joints slipped only 1.9 mm.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Buildings with RSFJs in braced configurations can undergo a design-level earthquake (about 0.5 g) and return to plumb with residual drift at or below 0.03%, avoiding the 0.2% out-of-plumb threshold that would trigger realignment.
The three configurations cover common steel framing types, so RSFJ self-centering is not limited to a single connection detail.
Peak inter-storey drifts (0.87-1.62%) stayed within design values, protecting drift-sensitive non-structural elements.
The MRF configuration did not engage the RSFJ as intended, suggesting its self-centering came largely from elastic frame behavior and that joint slip capacity must be tuned to frame stiffness.
Bidirectional shaking introduced torsion that amplified floor accelerations to 0.95 g, but peak displacements matched unidirectional tests, indicating the systems remain effective under out-of-plane shaking.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Since the MRF joints barely slipped, the genuinely novel claim—RSFJ-induced self-centering—is proven by the brace systems (TOB/TCB) rather than the MRF; the MRF result is better read as a design-tuning lesson.
If RSFJ springs degrade or relax over the life of a building, the self-centering margin might erode; the paper does not report long-term or repeated-shaking spring behavior beyond the test sequence.
The 0.03% residual drift is an order of magnitude below the 0.2% threshold; this headroom suggests RSFJs could be used in taller or more flexible structures, but higher-mode acceleration spikes (2-3x PGA) would need to be addressed for content protection.
A testable extension: instrument the Belleville springs directly and compare residual drift with springs locked out, to isolate the joint's contribution from frame elasticity.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my read. The paper gives us the first shake-table data on a complete three-storey steel building with RSFJs in three lateral systems. The braced configurations deliver: low residual drifts, peak drifts within design, and clean re-centering. The MRF configuration, however, never really engaged the joints. Maximum recorded slip was about 1.9 mm, and the paper itself says the frame behaved almost elastically. The abstract's claim that all three systems demonstrate the RSFJ's damping and self-centering is not supported by the paper's own data. The conclusion section is more careful and acknowledges the MRF issue, so the mismatch is mostly an abstract problem, but it is a real one.

What's genuinely new is the system-level scale. Earlier RSFJ work was component or subassembly. This is a full three-storey structure with complete vertical and lateral systems, three different RSFJ applications, and bidirectional tests. The experimental documentation is solid: test structure, RSFJ variants, cyclic characterization, modal identification, and response histories. The discussion of acceleration spikes—stiffness transition at zero crossing, Mode 2 effects, torsion in bidirectional tests—is thoughtful and grounded in physical mechanisms. For TOB and TCB, the measured residual drifts at 0.03% or below, with peak drifts of 0.87% and 1.11%, are strong evidence for self-centering in braced configurations. The paper is also honest about discrepancies: measured fundamental periods deviate from design (TCB 0.80 s vs 0.48 s; MRF 0.80 s vs 1.14 s), with plausible construction-tolerance explanations, and the actual table spectra are reported instead of just the target.

Soft spots, in proportion. The MRF result cannot carry the 'demonstrates the RSFJ's ability to damp' claim. With 1.9 mm slip, the joint is essentially elastic, and the frame's own elastic response can explain the low residual drift. That is a load-bearing qualification, not a cosmetic one. The single ground motion (El Centro, scaled to multiple intensities) limits generalizability, but the paper acknowledges it and uses the actual recorded motion. 'Data available on request' is a minor negative; raw histories would make the dataset more credible. The damping estimates are rough—the exponential envelope fit for TCB and MRF is poor by their own admission—and should not be read as precise device properties. None of these are fatal for the braced systems, but they should be fixed in revision.

Who this is for: people working on low-damage steel seismic systems, particularly friction-based self-centering devices. It won't reshape the field, but it provides a benchmark dataset and a clear picture of where RSFJ works cleanly (TOB/TCB) and where it needs development (MRF engagement). I'd send it to peer review with a request to revise the abstract and MRF framing. It deserves referee time.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports shake-table tests of a three-storey steel structure equipped with Resilient Slip-Friction Joints (RSFJ) in three longitudinal lateral systems: tension-only braces (TOB), tension-compression braces (TCB), and moment-resisting frames (MRF). All systems were subjected to the 1940 El Centro record scaled to increasing intensities up to about 0.5 g PGA, with bidirectional tests for TCB and MRF. The authors report peak roof drifts of 0.66%–1.26% of building height, peak inter-storey drifts up to 1.62%, residual drifts no greater than 0.03%, and floor accelerations up to 0.95 g in bidirectional TCB tests. The central claim is that RSFJs damp seismic vibrations and restore the structure to its original shape, with the MRF results acknowledged as involving only 1.9 mm of joint slip and 'almost elastic behavior.' The paper also presents modal identification, free-vibration damping estimates, and detailed acceleration-spike mechanisms.

Significance. If the claims are fully supported, this would be a valuable full-scale demonstration of a passive self-centering friction device across multiple structural configurations. The data are directly measured, the test specimen is described in considerable detail, and the paper openly reports deviations from design (periods, MRF joint slip). The main value is the experimental benchmark for future numerical validation of RSFJ systems. However, the stated broad conclusion about RSFJ damping and self-centering is only partially supported by the MRF test, because the joints did not slip appreciably; that configuration behaved essentially elastically. The paper's contribution remains significant for the TOB and TCB systems, and for documenting the challenges of implementing RSFJs in moment frames.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and 'Displacement Histories' (p. 20) and Conclusions (p. 28)] The abstract and conclusions state that 'in all cases' the structures self-centered and that the results demonstrate RSFJ damping and self-centering. In the MRF configuration, the maximum RSFJ deformation was only 1.9 mm, and the text states that 'additional flexibility in the system delayed the activation of the RSFJs and resulted in almost elastic behavior.' The conclusion also admits that 'the RSFJs in the MRF system did not slip as much as intended.' With slip of this magnitude, the near-zero residual drift and low damping cannot be attributed to the RSFJ mechanism; an elastic frame would also return to plumb. This is a load-bearing overstatement. The claims should be explicitly limited to the braced configurations, or the MRF discussion should be reframed as evidence of insufficient joint engagement rather than successful RSFJ performance.
[Table 5 vs Table 2; 'Modal Identification' (pp. 14–17)] The measured fundamental periods differ substantially from the design values: TCB 0.80 s vs 0.48 s design, MRF 0.80 s vs 1.14 s design, and TOB 0.40 s vs 0.46 s design. The paper attributes these to construction slack (TCB), pre-stress (TOB), and frame flexibility (MRF). These deviations are not merely incidental; they mean that the as-built systems did not have the intended stiffness and therefore the RSFJ engagement was altered. In particular, the TCB slack and MRF frame flexibility reduce the joint deformations that drive the self-centering/damping mechanism. The paper should discuss how these deviations affect the validity of the comparison to design demands and the transferability of the measured responses to other configurations.
[Equations (2)–(3) and Table 6 (p. 17)] The damping ratios (TOB 1.15%, TCB 4.0%, MRF 2.3%) are obtained from a single free-vibration decay segment (Test #10) using an exponential envelope. The authors themselves note the fit is poor for TCB and MRF because the decay is not exponential. For the MRF, the low joint slip means that the estimated 2.3% damping is essentially the elastic frame's damping, not RSFJ damping. These values should be presented with confidence bounds or as qualitative indicators, and the MRF value should not be used to support the claim that the RSFJ damps vibrations in that configuration.

minor comments (3)

[Eq. (3), p. 17] The equation 'd = ln(x_n/x_{n+1}) = ln(A e^{-a t}/A e^{-a(t+T)}) = e^{aT}' appears to have a typographical issue: the last equality should be 'aT', not 'e^{aT}'.
[General] The paper uses 'ROBUST program' without a reference to the program overview or a data repository for the raw time histories; adding a persistent data link or an appendix with representative time histories would improve reproducibility.
[Fig. 20 and Table 5] In Fig. 20 the fundamental period labels are clear, but the caption could state that the values are taken from the free-vibration portions of even-numbered tests; currently this is only explained in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Direct shake-table measurements carry all central claims; RSFJ self-citations are background only. The MRF result (1.9 mm slip, 'almost elastic behavior') weakens the blanket RSFJ-attribution claim but that is an evidence-weighting issue, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims — residual inter-storey drifts limited to 0.03%, peak inter-storey drifts of 0.87%/1.11%/1.62%, and peak floor accelerations — are direct measurements reported in Table 7 and the displacement histories; none is derived from a fitted parameter or from the RSFJ's defining equations. The scale factor (Eq. 1) matches a real accelerogram to a design spectrum (an input-matching procedure, not a response prediction); the damping ratios (Eqs. 2–3) are computed from measured free-vibration decay envelopes; the 25 Hz brace vibration is checked against Mersenne's law using an independently measured rod tension of 120 kN (Eq. 4). None of these reduces a target result to its own input. The RSFJ concept and its component-level behaviour are cited from the same group's prior work (Bagheri et al. 2020; Hashemi et al. 2018; Yousef-beik et al. 2024; Assadi et al. 2024), but those citations are background: the shake-table test is new, full-system, independently instrumented evidence, and the joints' own hysteresis is re-measured in this paper (Figs. 11–13). The paper also reports results that contradict its design expectations — measured periods of 0.80 s vs 0.48 s designed for TCB and 0.80 s vs 1.14 s for MRF, and only 1.9 mm of RSFJ slip in the MRF — which is the opposite of a self-confirming structure. The genuine weakness is evidentiary, not circular: for the MRF configuration the paper concedes 'Additional flexibility in the system delayed the activation of the RSFJs and resulted in almost elastic behavior' and concludes 'the RSFJs in the MRF system did not slip as much as intended,' so a nearly elastic steel frame could plausibly return to plumb without any RSFJ restoring action; the abstract's blanket 'in all cases … the results demonstrate the RSFJ's ability to damp … and restore' therefore overstates what the MRF run alone demonstrates. That is a correctness/attribution concern (the MRF claim is under-determined by the data), not a case of a derived quantity being equal by construction to an input, so under the strict criteria it does not raise the circularity score. Minor self-citation exists but is non-load-bearing; score 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims are empirical observations from the shake-table tests; the paper does not derive new equations. The main assumptions are that the as-built structure matches the design intent (which the paper shows is only partially true) and that prior component test data for the RSFJ transfer to the full-scale joints. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

Exponential decay envelope parameters (a, T, peak amplitudes A1±, A2±, A3±) = Table 6, e.g. TOB a=0.18, T=0.40 s
Fitted to free-vibration decay to estimate damping ratios (1.15-4.0%); not used for the main self-centering claim.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption NZS 1170.5 seismic loading standard is an appropriate design basis for the test structure.
The structure was designed per NZS 1170.5; the tests assume this code represents realistic design practice for a Wellington, NZ site.
domain assumption Prior RSFJ component test results (Bagheri 2020; Yousef-beik 2024) are representative of the installed joints.
The paper uses the RSFJ hysteresis from component tests to infer joint behavior in the full structure; figures 11-13 show representative cyclic tests.
domain assumption The scaled 1940 El Centro record (Eq. 1) is a valid proxy for design-level ground motion.
A single ground motion is scaled to ULS and MCE intensities; the paper acknowledges this is a subjective quantitative selection.
standard math Frequency domain decomposition correctly identifies modes from white-noise response.
Modal periods and shapes in Table 5 and Fig. 21 are extracted using FDD (Brincker et al. 2001), a standard technique.
standard math Mersenne's law approximates the lateral vibration frequency of the tension-only brace rod.
Eq. 4 is used to compare a measured 25 Hz oscillation with a computed 23 Hz first harmonic, supporting the 'vibrating string' explanation.
domain assumption Transverse symmetric friction connections slip at approximately 100 kN.
The transverse V-brace SFC slip force is cited from prior work (Yan et al. 2020); unbalanced deformation of these connections is blamed for torsion.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shake-Table Tests of a Three-Storey Steel Structure with Resilient Slip-Friction Joints (RSFJ)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/56MOGEIR

@misc{pith2026250903452,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shake-Table Tests of a Three-Storey Steel Structure with Resilient Slip-Friction Joints (RSFJ)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/56MOGEIR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03452}
}

read the original abstract

Shake-table tests were conducted as part of the Robust Building Systems (ROBUST) program to evaluate and demonstrate the resilience of various structural concepts under earthquake excitations. This paper presents the results of 3 different configurations incorporating the Resilient Slip-Friction Joint (RSFJ) in: (1) tension-only braces (TOB), (2) tension-compression braces (TCB), and (3) moment-resisting frame (MRF) joints along the longitudinal direction. Each building configuration was subjected to the El Centro ground motion at increasing intensities, reaching a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of about 0.5 g. The peak displacements sustained were well within design values, with the top floor deflecting by 0.66%, 0.98% and 1.26% of the total height for the TOB, TCB and MRF systems respectively. The corresponding inter-storey drifts peaked at 0.87%, 1.11% and 1.62%. In all cases, the structures essentially self-centered with residual drifts limited to 0.03%. The floor accelerations observed in unidirectional tests were 0.67 g (TOB), 0.66 g (TCB) and 0.62 g (MRF). The spikes may occur during (a) direction reversal at peak Mode 1 amplitude, (b) under the influence of higher Mode 2, and/or (c) stiffness transition at the upright/plumb position. In bidirectional tests, torsion effects contributed to the largest acceleration recorded at 0.95 g (TCB). Unbalanced resistance/deformation of symmetric friction connections in the transverse direction led to the structure twisting and loading the longitudinal RSFJs unevenly. However, the effects on peak displacements were not significant and similar responses as unidirectional tests indicate effective performance under simultaneous out-of-plane shaking. The results demonstrate the RSFJ's ability to damp seismically induced vibrations and restore structures to their original, undeformed shape after earthquakes.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[14]

ROBUST friction building shaking table testing overview

“ROBUST friction building shaking table testing overview.” Proc. 2020 NZSEE Annu. Conf. Wellington, New Zealand. Mehrabi, M. H., Z. Ibrahim, S. S. Ghodsi, and M. Suhatril

work page 2020
[18]

Part 5: Earthquake actions – New Zealand (incorporating Amendment No

Structural design actions. Part 5: Earthquake actions – New Zealand (incorporating Amendment No. 1). NZS 1170.5:2004. Steel&Tube

work page 2004
[19]

Retrieved on December 5, 2024 from: https://downloads.ctfassets.net/dq9b2d58kdrp/1lsNnDpzg2mqZAmTMAnnUH/2ce5ba429dda2c2f2f3bcccea2e83292/Deprem_Ar a_t_rma_Komisyon_Raporu_2023.pdf

Turkish Parliamentary Earthquake Research Commission Report. Retrieved on December 5, 2024 from: https://downloads.ctfassets.net/dq9b2d58kdrp/1lsNnDpzg2mqZAmTMAnnUH/2ce5ba429dda2c2f2f3bcccea2e83292/Deprem_Ar a_t_rma_Komisyon_Raporu_2023.pdf. Tectonus

work page 2024
[20]

Seismic self-centering steel beam-to-column moment connections using bolted friction devices

“Seismic self-centering steel beam-to-column moment connections using bolted friction devices.” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., (37): 627–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe. UNDRR

doi:10.1002/eqe
[21]

UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

The human cost of disasters: an overview of the last 20 years (2000-2019). UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Uroš, M., J. Atalić, M. Demšić, M. Baniček, M. Šavor Novak, and A. Kadić

work page 2000
[22]

Impact of Devastating Earthquakes in Croatia in 2020

“Impact of Devastating Earthquakes in Croatia in 2020.” J. Appl. Eng. Sci., 22 (2): 239–244. https://doi.org/10.5937/jaes0-50405. Yan, Z., S. Ramhormozian, G. C. Clifton, H. Bagheri, G. A. MacRae, P. Quenneville, R. Dhakal, P. Xiang, L. Jia, and X. Zhao

work page doi:10.5937/jaes0-50405 2020
[23]

Design and testing of a self-centering friction damper- brace for compression ultimate limit state: Inelastic buckling

“Design and testing of a self-centering friction damper- brace for compression ultimate limit state: Inelastic buckling.” Structures, 62: 106166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.106166. Zhang, H., L. Quan, and X. Lu

work page arXiv 2024
[25]

Comparison of Scaling Ground Motions Using Arithmetic with Logarithm Values for Spectral Matching Procedure

“Comparison of Scaling Ground Motions Using Arithmetic with Logarithm Values for Spectral Matching Procedure.” Shock Vib., 2020: 8180612. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8180612

work page doi:10.1155/2020/8180612 2020

Show all 23 references

[1999]

Preliminary Results and Conclusions from the PRESSS Five- Story Precast Concrete Test Building

“Preliminary Results and Conclusions from the PRESSS Five- Story Precast Concrete Test Building.” PCI J., 44 (6): 42–67. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.11011999.42.67. Ramirez, C. M., A. B. Liel, C. B. Haselton, and A. D. Spear

doi
[2001]

Modal identification of output-only systems using frequency domain decomposition

“Modal identification of output-only systems using frequency domain decomposition.” Smart Mater. Struct., 10 (3): 441–445. https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/10/3/303. Bruneau, M., and G. A. MacRae

doi
[2007]

Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis

“Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions using wavelet analysis.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 97 (5): 1486–1501. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060255. Borzouie, J., G. A. MacRae, J. G. Chase, G. W. Rodgers, and G. C. Clifton

doi
[2008]

Self-Centering Energy Dissipative Bracing System for the Seismic Resistance of Structures: Development and Validation

“Self-Centering Energy Dissipative Bracing System for the Seismic Resistance of Structures: Development and Validation.” J. Struct. Eng., 134 (1): 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733- 9445(2008)134. Dhakal, R. P., A. Pourali, A. S. Tasligedik, T. Yeow, A. Baird, G. Macr...

2008 doi
[2010]

The sliding hinge joint moment connection

“The sliding hinge joint moment connection.” Bull. New Zeal. Soc. Earthq. Eng., 43 (3): 202–212. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.43.3.202-212. MacRae, G., X. Zhao, L. Jia, P. Xiang, C. Clifton, R. Dhakal, G. Rodgers, and S. Ramhormozian

doi
[2015]

Design and Testing of an Enhanced-Elongation Telescoping Self-Centering This manuscript has not been peer-reviewed © ASCE 30 Energy-Dissipative Brace

“Design and Testing of an Enhanced-Elongation Telescoping Self-Centering This manuscript has not been peer-reviewed © ASCE 30 Energy-Dissipative Brace.” J. Struct. Eng., 141 (6): 04014163. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001109. Erochko, J., C. Christopoulos, R. Tr...

1943 doi
[2016]

Experimental Studies on Cyclic Performance of Column Base Strong Axis–Aligned Asymmetric Friction Connections

“Experimental Studies on Cyclic Performance of Column Base Strong Axis–Aligned Asymmetric Friction Connections.” J. Struct. Eng., 142 (1): 04015078. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0001327. Brincker, R., L. Zhang, and P. Andersen

1943 doi
[2018]

Experimental Testing of Rocking Cross-Laminated Timber Walls with Resilient Slip Friction Joints

“Experimental Testing of Rocking Cross-Laminated Timber Walls with Resilient Slip Friction Joints.” J. Struct. Eng., 144 (1): 04017180. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001931. Hussain, H., and D. K. Kim

1943 doi
[2019]

Seismic characteristics of X-cable braced frames bundled with a pre-compressed spring

“Seismic characteristics of X-cable braced frames bundled with a pre-compressed spring.” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 116: 732–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.10.014. Priestley, M. J. N., S. Sritharan, J. R. Conley, and S. Pampanin

2018 doi
[2020]

New Self-Centering Tension-Only Brace Using Resilient Slip-Friction Joint: Experimental Tests and Numerical Analysis

“New Self-Centering Tension-Only Brace Using Resilient Slip-Friction Joint: Experimental Tests and Numerical Analysis.” J. Struct. Eng., 146 (10): 04020219. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0002789. Baker, J. W

1943 doi
[2021]

Re-emerging From the Rubble: What Is Delaying Regeneration of Christchurch CBD?

“Re-emerging From the Rubble: What Is Delaying Regeneration of Christchurch CBD?” NZSEE 2021 Conf., Paper

2021
[2022]

Experimental Hysteretic Behavior and Application of an Assembled Self-Centering Buckling- Restrained Brace

“Experimental Hysteretic Behavior and Application of an Assembled Self-Centering Buckling- Restrained Brace.” J. Struct. Eng., 148 (3): 04021302. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0003287. Zhang, R., D. S. Wang, X. Y. Chen, and H. N. Li

1943 doi
[2023]

Pinching-Free Connector in a Self-Centering Braced Frame

“Pinching-Free Connector in a Self-Centering Braced Frame.” J. Struct. Eng., 149 (7): 04023083. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSENDH.STENG-12211. Christopoulos, C., R. Tremblay, H. Kim, and M. Lacerte

doi
[2024]

Shake-table testing of the resilient slip friction joints

“Shake-table testing of the resilient slip friction joints.” Proc. NZSEE 2024 Annu. Conf. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering. Bagheri, H

2024
[2156]

Kaneko, Y

https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13092156. Kaneko, Y

doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [14]

ROBUST friction building shaking table testing overview

“ROBUST friction building shaking table testing overview.” Proc. 2020 NZSEE Annu. Conf. Wellington, New Zealand. Mehrabi, M. H., Z. Ibrahim, S. S. Ghodsi, and M. Suhatril

work page 2020

[2] [18]

Part 5: Earthquake actions – New Zealand (incorporating Amendment No

Structural design actions. Part 5: Earthquake actions – New Zealand (incorporating Amendment No. 1). NZS 1170.5:2004. Steel&Tube

work page 2004

[3] [19]

Retrieved on December 5, 2024 from: https://downloads.ctfassets.net/dq9b2d58kdrp/1lsNnDpzg2mqZAmTMAnnUH/2ce5ba429dda2c2f2f3bcccea2e83292/Deprem_Ar a_t_rma_Komisyon_Raporu_2023.pdf

Turkish Parliamentary Earthquake Research Commission Report. Retrieved on December 5, 2024 from: https://downloads.ctfassets.net/dq9b2d58kdrp/1lsNnDpzg2mqZAmTMAnnUH/2ce5ba429dda2c2f2f3bcccea2e83292/Deprem_Ar a_t_rma_Komisyon_Raporu_2023.pdf. Tectonus

work page 2024

[4] [20]

Seismic self-centering steel beam-to-column moment connections using bolted friction devices

“Seismic self-centering steel beam-to-column moment connections using bolted friction devices.” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., (37): 627–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe. UNDRR

doi:10.1002/eqe

[5] [21]

UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

The human cost of disasters: an overview of the last 20 years (2000-2019). UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Uroš, M., J. Atalić, M. Demšić, M. Baniček, M. Šavor Novak, and A. Kadić

work page 2000

[6] [22]

Impact of Devastating Earthquakes in Croatia in 2020

“Impact of Devastating Earthquakes in Croatia in 2020.” J. Appl. Eng. Sci., 22 (2): 239–244. https://doi.org/10.5937/jaes0-50405. Yan, Z., S. Ramhormozian, G. C. Clifton, H. Bagheri, G. A. MacRae, P. Quenneville, R. Dhakal, P. Xiang, L. Jia, and X. Zhao

work page doi:10.5937/jaes0-50405 2020

[7] [23]

Design and testing of a self-centering friction damper- brace for compression ultimate limit state: Inelastic buckling

“Design and testing of a self-centering friction damper- brace for compression ultimate limit state: Inelastic buckling.” Structures, 62: 106166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.106166. Zhang, H., L. Quan, and X. Lu

work page arXiv 2024

[8] [25]

Comparison of Scaling Ground Motions Using Arithmetic with Logarithm Values for Spectral Matching Procedure

“Comparison of Scaling Ground Motions Using Arithmetic with Logarithm Values for Spectral Matching Procedure.” Shock Vib., 2020: 8180612. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8180612

work page doi:10.1155/2020/8180612 2020