Lateral Behavior of Light Wood-Frame Shear Walls with Gypsum Wall Board
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it