Seismic force modification factors for light-gauge steel-frame - wood structural panel shear walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design guidelines for laterally loaded light-gauge steel-frame – wood structural panel shear walls are not available in Canadian codes. A design method for the calculation of shear stiffness and strength has been developed for use with the 2005 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC), however. This method was based on the analysis, using an equivalent energy elastic–plastic (EEEP) approach, of over 180 single-storey shear wall tests of various configurations. Ductility-related (R d ) and overstrength-related (R o ) force modification factors also need to be defined to calculate equivalent static seismic forces following the 2005 NBCC. This paper describes the development of these two factors based on the EEEP analysis of the shear wall test results. To verify the "test-based" R d and R o values, nonlinear time-history dynamic analyses of two representative buildings were carried out using a suite of 10 earthquake records scaled to the 2% in 50 year uniform hazard spectrum (UHS) for Vancouver, British Columbia. Preliminary values have been determined for the force modification factors, namely R d = 2.5 and R o = 1.7.Key words: shear wall, light-gauge steel, wood structural panel, seismic, R value.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".