CHARACTERIZATION OF COLD-FORMED STEEL FRAMED / WOOD-SHEATHED FLOOR AND ROOF DIAPHRAGM STRUCTURES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The seismic in-plane response of cold-formed steel (CFS) framed diaphragm structures has not been the subject of extensive study. The information available specific to diaphragm design in the North American CFS design standard is based on limited experimental work and the extrapolation of design methods developed for the wood industry. Nonetheless, buildings having floor and roof diaphragms framed with thin steel joist members and wood sheathing panels are being constructed in North America. To address these shortcomings a test-based research project was carried out at McGill University. The objective was to provide characterization of typical CFS framed / wood-sheathed diaphragm response to in-plane lateral loading, in order to better understand the structural performance, and to provide full force vs. deformation hysteretic parameters for use in subsequent design method development and nonlinear response history analyses of CFS framed structures. This research was a complementary study to the CFS – NEES a project, which involved the dynamic testing of a full-scale two storey CFS framed building. The work detailed herein includes diaphragm test specimens that were based on the floor and roof configurations used in the CFS - NEES Building. The objective was to obtain information regarding the response to loading of the isolated diaphragm systems. The specimens were comprised of oriented strand board (OSB) sheathing screwed to CFS C-Channel joists. Eight 3.66 x 6.1m diaphragm configurations were tested under monotonic and reversed cyclic loading. Design predictions for the shear strength and stiffness of the diaphragm configurations are also included following the provisions of the AISI S213 & AISI S400 Standards.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".