Characterisation of the Lateral Resistance of Stapled Shear Walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shear walls are the major components of the lateral-force-resisting system (LFRS) in light-frame wood buildings. With the growing popularity of mid-rise prefabricated light-frame wood construction, engineers need basic design information on the shear walls to design and produce safe structures in case of high winds and earthquakes. The racking resistance of light-frame shear walls depends on many factors, including sheathing and hold-down devices and, most importantly, sheathing-to-framing fastenings. While the performance of nailed shear walls has been studied extensively, and design information is included in the design codes, there is little information on stapled shear walls, specifically in the US and Canada. The cost of staples is significantly less than that of equivalent nails; hence, the use of staples instead of nails would allow cost savings in mass production if they provide sufficient resistance and displacement capacity in the engineered shear walls. This paper presents the results of a pilot study which was focused on the comparison of the performance of nailed and stapled shear walls in laboratory tests under monotonic and cyclic loading in accordance with ASTM E564 and E2126, respectively. Several series of tests were performed on 2.4-m (8-ft) square shear walls with 11-mm (7/16-in) OSB sheathing with various hold-downs and various spacing of sheathing staples and nails on the perimeter of the sheathing panels (5-cm (2-in), 10-cm (4-in) and 15-cm (6-in)) and 19-mm and 10-mm edge distances. The staples were 16-gauge (50-mm (2-in) long with 11-mm (7/16-in) crown). The nails were 8d box steel wire nails (63-mm (2½-in) long with 2.87-mm (0.113-in) diameter). The test results revealed a similar performance of the nailed and stapled shear walls, and the need for careful detailing. Therefore, prefabrication of walls in the factory settings is preferable to the on-site construction to allow the production quality control.
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) | 0.001 | 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".