Performance Evaluation of Portal Frame System in Low-Rise Light-Frame Wood Structures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, results are presented from a testing program focused on evaluating the performance of portal frame systems. A total of nine full-scale portal frame assemblies with six different configurations were tested under monotonic and reversed cyclic loading. The portal frames were 3.66 m in length and 2.44 m in height, with a 406-mm wall segment at each end of the portal frame. From the experimental results, it was observed that the corner joint between the header and narrow braced wall segment governs the lateral load-carrying capacity and ultimate displacement of the portal frame. Installation of metal straps considerably increased the lateral load-carrying capacity of the portal frame assemblies. Straps placed directly on the lumber framing showed increased resistance compared to those installed on the oriented strand board. Portal frames with hold-downs had a greater lateral load-carrying capacity those without hold-downs. A comparison was made between portal frames and conventional braced walls used in low-rise light-frame wood buildings. The portal frames in general have lower initial stiffness than the braced walls. A portal frame with sheathing on one side only and no hold-down has an ultimate load-carrying capacity equivalent to a 2.44-m long braced wall with hold-down. A portal frame with hold-down can on average achieve a capacity similar to that of a 4.88-m long braced wall without hold-down.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it