Behaviour of light-gauge steel-frame – wood structural panel shear walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The second phase of the research project to develop a shear wall design method that could be used in conjunction with the 2005 National Building Code of Canada involved evaluation of the performance characteristics of the tested steel-frame – wood structural panel shear walls. A nonlinear and pinched resistance versus deflection hysteretic behaviour was exhibited, although in most cases the walls could sustain large inelastic deformation cycles with limited strength degradation. A significant amount of energy could be dissipated under reversed cyclic loading. Walls 1220 mm and 2440 mm in length were able to develop their maximum capacity at similar displacement levels; however, the 610 mm long walls required significantly larger displacements prior to reaching their ultimate shear resistance. The performance of the walls was directly linked to the behaviour of the sheathing-to-framing screw connections, except in one case in which local buckling of the chord studs controlled the ultimate shear resistance. Given the behaviour observed during testing, this type of wall construction can be relied on to resist lateral loading, including earthquake effects in the inelastic range, assuming the designer ensures that failure of the wall is limited to the sheathing-to-framing connections.Key words: shear wall, light-gauge steel, wood structural panel, earthquake, wind.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".