MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158916664 · doi:10.82308/42936

Higher capacity cold-formed steel sheathed and framed shear walls for mid-rise buildings: Part 2

2018· article· en· W3158916664 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShear wallCold-formed steelHigh riseShear (geology)Structural engineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialEngineeringFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the increase in the use of cold-formed steel (CFS) in mid-rise construction (up to 5 storeys), the North American cold-formed steel standards AISI S400 and S240 do not provide a standard design procedure for CFS sheathed and framed shear walls for use in such constructions. The main objective of this research was to develop a design procedure for CFS sheathed and framed shear walls to achieve higher strength and ductility and resist the larger forces expected in mid-rise construction. The design procedure proposed for inclusion in the AISI S400 and S240 standards.Full-scale experiments have been performed using a shear wall testing frame at McGill University where a total of 31 specimens were tested monotonically and / or cyclically. These specimens were constructed with thicker sheathing and framing members not currently available for design, using two innovative building configurations (double-sheathed and centre-sheathed) to eliminate the effects of eccentric sheathing placement and take full advantage of bearing failure in the sheathing.The specimens were built with varying construction parameters (material thickness, screw size and screw spacing) and the test data was analysed using the Equivalent Energy Elastic-Plastic (EEEP) method. The configuration using a single concentric sheathing placement (centre-sheathed configuration) reached shear strengths nearly four times higher than what is listed in the current standards. Further, the walls’ ductility was substantially improved (up to 8% drift), giving this design a strong potential to be used in mid-rise construction. A preliminary design method was introduced for this configuration, taking into consideration the different behaviour from these shear walls. A preliminary Limit States Design procedure for Canada (LSD) and the USA and Mexico (LRFD) was determined based on the test results. Resistance factors and overstrength values were also provided. The “test-based” ductility-related and overstrength-related seismic force modification factors for Canada (Rd and Ro) obtained the values of 2.8 and 1.5. This promising centre-sheathed configuration requires further research in order to advance towards a definitive design method for the use of CFS framed and sheathed shear walls in mid-rise construction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it