Testing of light-gauge steel-frame - wood structural panel shear walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At present, no Canadian document is available with which engineers can design light-gauge steel-frame – wood structural panel shear walls that are relied upon to resist lateral in-plane loading (earthquake and wind). For this reason, a research project was initiated with the overall goal of developing a shear wall design method that could be used in conjunction with the 2005 National Building Code of Canada. The initial phase of the project was to conduct an experimental study to provide information on the response of single-storey shear walls. An extensive program of tests was completed on walls composed of 1.12 mm thick 230 MPa grade steel framing sheathed with 12.5 mm Douglas-fir plywood, Canadian softwood plywood, or 11 mm oriented strand board wood structural panels. Various wall lengths and connection patterns were incorporated into the program of monotonic and reversed cyclic tests. The scope of testing was selected such that it added to the North American database of information for steel-frame – wood structural panel shear walls. Information on the test program and the general results are provided in this paper.Key words: shear wall, light-gauge steel, wood structural panel, earthquake, wind.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".