Strength Reduction Factors for High-Aspect-Ratio OSB Cold-Formed Steel Frame Shear Walls
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
Design provisions for cold-formed steel (CFS) light frame shear walls with wall height-to-width/length ratios (aspect ratios) greater than 2∶1, and less than 4∶1, requires a reduction in nominal strength based on the wall aspect ratio. This reduction is attributed to increased wall flexibility. The current strength reduction is not supported by existing data and it is not justified given building code lateral displacement limits and the availability of expressions to estimate wall displacement. Additionally, a significant underestimation of nominal or peak strength is not helpful where capacity-based design is adopted. In this paper, the results of an experimental program that included 11-mm oriented strand board (OSB) sheathed CFS shear walls with aspect ratios between 2∶3 and 8∶1 are presented, and a conservative, more consistent and less severe strength reduction expression is offered—an expression that facilitates more sustainable design and meets the intention of the current standards of engineering practice.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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