Higher strength cold-formed steel framed / steel shear walls for mid-rise construction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The current North American Standards, AISI S240 (2015) & AISI S400 (2015), provide design information for steel sheathed shear walls having a maximum sheathing thickness of 0.84mm (0.33'') and a 1.37mm (0.54'') thick frame. The specimens tested as part of past research programs composed of these members developed a shear resistance close to 30 kN/m (2058lb/ft) (#10 screws @ 50 mm (2'') o.c.). There is a demand to be able to design all-steel shear walls that are capable of developing lateral resistance beyond 100 kN/m to bridge the gap between cold-formed steel and hot-rolled steel lateral framing shear wall systems. DaBreo (2012) showed that the full blocking increased the resistance of the shear walls by up to 25%.The objectives of the current research project are; 1) to analyze the influence of the wall length for shear walls designed and built with quarter point blocking elements, and 2) to determine the influence of the framing thickness on the performance of the shear walls. In total, 28 specimens (14 configurations) were tested under monotonic and CUREE reversed cyclic loading protocols. The data analysis conducted to extract various design parameters for Canada was based on the Equivalent Energy Elastic-Plastic (EEEP) methodology. The equivalent design parameters were also determined for the United States of America and Mexico.First, the results of this research program indicate that the shear resistance (normalized to length) is not be affected by the wall length for walls having an aspect ratio (h:w) less than (2:1). Walls having an aspect ratio (h:w) of 4:1 reached equivalent levels of ultimate resistance but had to be pushed to large displacement in order to attain those load levels. Second, the data collected showed that specimens constructed with a thicker framing developed a higher shear capacity. Lastly, the testing program showed that the quarter point blocking reinforcement reduced the distortion of the chord studs of the 2' (610 mm), 4' (1220 mm) and 6' (1830 mm) long walls. The full blocking did not restrict effectively the overall out-of-plane deformation of the 8' walls.The recommended Canadian limits states design resistance factor Ï for shear walls with blocking reinforcement designed to carry lateral wind loads is 0.7. For the USA and Mexico, a resistance factor Ï=0.6 was recommended. Further, the reduction factor of 2w/h listed in the AISI S400 (2015) Standard for high aspect ratio walls is applicable for the design of blocked shear walls. The recommended factors of safety, calculated for limit states design (LSD) and allowable strength design (ASD) are respectively 2.06 and 2.88. For Canada, an overstrength value of 1.4 was recommended for the blocked specimens. Finally, for CFS framed / steel sheathed shear walls, the measured âtest basedâ Canadian seismic force modification factors for ductility are Rd=2.0 and for overstrength, Ro=1.3.The FEMA P795 methodology was applied in order to determine if the cold-formed steel shear walls designed with full frame blocking and thick sheathing / framing members is equivalent to line A.16 in Table 12.2-1 of ASCE/SEI (2010), which reads âLight-Frame (cold-formed steel) walls sheathed with wood structural panels rated for shear resistance or steel sheets.â The results obtained from the analysis were not conclusive, some of the requirements listed by the FEMA P-795 to confirm the equivalency were not met. It is recommended to apply the FEMA P-695 methodology, in which R values are evaluated using a non-linear response history dynamic analyses of representative structures, whose load-deformation response is modeled after the results of the shear wall tests.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».