Lateral Behavior of Light Wood-Frame Shear Walls with Gypsum Wall Board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gypsum wallboards (GWB) are widely used in light wood-frame construction, and their presence has a significant effect on the strength, stiffness and ductility of such structures even if they are not accounted for as structural elements in design. The research described herein aims to establish a better understanding of the behavior of shear walls sheathed with Type-X gypsum wallboards and investigates whether the behavior of such walls can be predicted through the use of component inputs obtained from testing. Full-scale Type-X GWB sheathed shear walls were tested under reversed cyclic loading to investigate the effect of fastening parameters, such as fastener type, spacing at panel edges, and panel edge distance. The study found that the fastener panel edge distance did not have an impact on the response of the shear walls within the range of 9–19 mm. Shear walls with fastener spacing at the panel edge not permitted in the design standard (50 mm) experienced relative reduced capacity and brittle failure mode compared to a wall with a fastener spacing of 150 mm. It was also found that the capacity of shear walls sheathed with Type-X GWB could be predicted by considering the joint level capacity while accounting for the number of joints at panel edges as long as the failure of the shear walls is governed by panel-to-framing joints.
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) | 0.002 | 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".