Seismic force modification factors for wood light-frame buildings incorporating a new type of OSB-sheathed Midply shear wall system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The original Midply system (Midply1.0) is a wood shear wall system known for its high strength and superior lateral performance; however, its shortcomings led to the development of an upgraded version (Midply2.0). While prior research has demonstrated the robust performance of Midply2.0 wall specimens under monotonic and reversed cyclic loading, the seismic behavior of wood light-frame buildings incorporating these walls, hereafter Midply2.0 buildings, remains unexplored. This study evaluates the lateral performance of Midply2.0 buildings under high seismic loads. Factored shear resistance values were determined for six OSB-sheathed Midply2.0 wall configurations and force modification factors R o (overstrength-related) and R d (ductility-related) were estimated. Eleven Midply2.0 buildings, ranging from three to six stories, were designed for high seismic loads, and ten of these buildings were subjected to a total of approximately 8500 nonlinear time-history analyses using 22 pairs of scaled far-field earthquake records. The results indicate that all the designed Midply2.0 buildings met the required strength and drift criteria at the design hazard level earthquakes. Additionally, the adjusted collapse margin ratios (ACMRs), calculated using a simplified FEMA P695 method, were within acceptable limits. The study concludes that a combined force modification factor ( R o R d ) of 5.1 is suitable for the seismic design of Midply2.0 buildings. • Determined factored shear resistance for six Midply2.0 shear wall configurations. • Simulated Midply2.0 shear walls using the Pseudo-nail model approach. • Evaluated seismic performance of wood-frame buildings with Midply2.0 shear walls. • Conducted approximately 8500 nonlinear time history analyses. • Recommended combined force modification factor of 5.1 for seismic design.
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".