Light-gauge steel-frame wood structural panel shear wall design method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design guidelines for laterally loaded (wind and seismic) light-gauge steel-frame wood structural panel shear walls are currently unavailable in Canadian standards and codes. A research project was initiated at McGill University in 2001 with the objective of developing a shear wall design method that could be used in conjunction with the 2005 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC). An extensive program of tests was first carried out to establish a database of shear wall information. The equivalent energy elasticplastic (EEEP) analysis approach was then chosen to derive key design parameters for the shear walls, including nominal shear strength, elastic stiffness, overstrength, and ductility. This paper presents the development of the proposed design method, the resulting nominal strength and unit elastic stiffness values according to typical perimeter fastener schedules and sheathing type, and the calibration of a resistance factor to the 2005 NBCC wind loads. Overstrength values used for a capacity-based seismic design approach and factors of safety for wind loading are also provided.Key words: shear wall, light-gauge steel, wood structural panel, earthquake, wind, design.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".