Seismic Resistance of Wood Shear Walls with Large OSB Panels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Results are presented from studies on the seismic resistance of wood shear walls sheathed with large (2.4 × 2.4 m) and standard (1.2 × 2.4 m) size oriented strand board (OSB) panels. Comparisons were made among twelve 2.4 × 2.4 m walls tested under quasi-static monotonic and cyclic, as well as dynamic, loads. In push-over tests, all walls reached a drift of approximately 2.5% at maximum load. A 26% increase in shear capacity was achieved using large panels. The nails that would be at internal seams in walls with standard panels were redistributed around the exterior edges of some large panel walls. They also showed a 104% increase in shear capacity and a 30% increase in initial stiffness. These walls performed significantly better when tested dynamically, using the east-west motion recorded at Joshua Tree Station during the 1992 Landers, Calif., earthquake. Their maximum drift was reduced by approximately 25% over standard walls. Damage incurred during dynamic tests consisted mainly of nail pullout and tear out. Renailing at these locations is simple and can restore the wall to a satisfactory performance level.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".