Testing and analysis of light gauge steel frame 9 mm OSB wood panel shear walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of light steel gauge framed walls in the residential and commercial sector is increasing in popularity. However, our knowledge of the performance and the behaviour of structures using such walls when subjected to lateral wind and seismic loads is limited. At present, no design method for light gauge steel shear walls is contained in Canadian codes or standards. For this reason a research project on steel frame/wood panel shear walls was undertaken. A comprehensive database of monotonic and reversed cyclic tests on steel frame/wood panel shear walls is needed to obtain different wall parameters for use in design. For this particular project 1220 x 2440 mm walls (3 wall configurations for a total of 18 specimens) composed of 1.09 mm thick 230 MPa grade steel and 9.0 mm thick OSB were tested; where the screw spacing along the perimeter of the wall was varied (75, 100 & 152 mm). The equivalent energy elastic-plastic (EEEP) analysis approach was employed to derive design values from the test results; such as stiffness, strength and a resistance factor for use with the 2005 NBCC, as well as ductility and overstrength modification factors. The resistance factor, o = 0.7, determined by Branston was confirmed. Ductility related, Rd = 2.5, and overstrength related, R0 = 1.8, seismic force modification factors are recommended for use with shear wall design values that are based on the EEEP analysis approach. Furthermore, the test data were used to create and calibrate hysteretic models, with the Stewart element, which later were used in non-linear time history dynamic analyses. The Ruaumoko software was made use of for the modeling of two representative buildings with ten earthquake records for the Vancouver BC region. The shear wall system of a typical two-storey house and a three-storey commercial building was first designed for lateral loads and then modeled. The resulting shear deformations (rotations) obtained from the analyses were compared with the limiting parameters measured during the physical shear wall tests. It was found that the scaled ground motions caused a shear demand that did not exceed the test based deformation limits.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".