Validation of seismic design parameters for wood-frame shearwall systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A methodology for assessment of seismic design parameters for a wood-frame shearwall system is developed, consisting of a test program of shearwalls and the application of nonlinear time history analyses to a four-storey wood-frame building that was designed to resist the seismic requirements for Vancouver, British Columbia. Analyses employed 22 selected earthquake accelerograms that were scaled upwards until an ultimate peak ground acceleration (A u ) was reached where the shearwall reached a "near-collapse" state. The 22 values of A u were found to be greater than the "design" peak ground acceleration, indicating the adequacy of the current design procedures for the particular shearwalls investigated. The influence of gypsum wallboard on the behaviour of the shearwalls was also evaluated, and a new force modification factor "R" for walls composed of a mixture of wood-based and gypsum panels was proposed. The effect of flexibility of floor diaphragms was considered separately for a symmetric building and was found to have 5-30% reduction on the A u values obtained for the rigid diaphragm case.Key words: seismic design, earthquake loads, timber structures, wood shearwalls.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".