Tests and finite element models of wood light‐frame shear walls with openings
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Shear walls are the primary means by which low and medium rise wood light‐frame buildings resist effects of lateral loads caused by wind, seismic or other events. Traditionally, adequacy of shear walls has been a minor concern because wood light‐frame buildings tended to be small, their shapes were regular, the amount of external and interior walls available to resist lateral forces was considerable, and the number and extent of openings in walls was limited. In modern times however, changes in the range of wood‐based construction products used, changes in construction detailing, increased geometric irregularity of buildings, more open interiors, and more numerous and larger wall openings, has raised concerns about the lateral resistance of wood frame buildings. Shear walls and how they interact with the rest of the system needs to be properly understood. They should be analysed based on generalized engineering principles that are comprehensively validated. This paper addresses proper understanding of wood light‐frame shear walls and engineering models for their analysis. Focus of analysis is on detailed finite element models suitable for representing shear walls with openings. Predictive abilities of models are verified against results of specially designed laboratory tests on shear wall segments containing a window or door opening and different hold‐down construction detailing. There is no intent that finite element models need be adopted by structural designers. Rather, the purpose of such models is that once rigorously verified they provide a benchmark against which the acceptability of simpler ‘design level’ models can be rationally assessed. Very good agreement exists between finite element models presented here and test results for shear walls loaded to destruction, with correct prediction of failure mechanisms for different configurations. Both experiments and modelling clearly demonstrate that both stiffness and strength of shear walls reduces disproportionately in relation to the extent of openings in them. This suggests that neither simplistic conceptualization of how shear walls behave nor simple design practices will lead to solutions that are both economic and safe, across a broad range of situations. However, comparison of test results and model predictions with state‐of‐the‐art design code rules indicates that the code rules quite accurately predict actual strengths of the shear walls tested by the authors. Further work is required to elucidate fully reliable design practices for buildings containing wood light‐frame shear walls. Emphasis within this will need be on the question of how to apportion lateral loads between various shear walls within a complete building.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».