Performance of nailed sheathing-framing connections in light wood framed shear walls: A comparative study across design standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light wood framed construction is commonly used for low-rise residential buildings around the world. The connections between the light wood frames and wood-based sheathing such as plywood or oriented strand board (OSB), typically realized using small-diameter nails, form an integral part of this construction typology. In seismic zones , sheathing-framing connections in shear walls also provide the main source of energy dissipation and system ductility. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of testing projects investigating the monotonic and cyclic behaviour of nailed connections between plywood and OSB sheathing and timber studs. A total of 383 connection tests are included, considering eight nail sizes, four plywood thicknesses, two OSB thicknesses and different load-grain directions. The experimental results are analyzed and compared with design standards from Canada (CSA O86), New Zealand (NZS1720.1), and Europe (EC5). By comparing the 95 th percentile experimental strength and the predicted characteristic strength, the connection overstrength factors were found in the range of 1.47 (EC5) to 1.68 (CSA O86). These factors can be explicitly used to guide capacity design of shear walls and ensure the designed shear walls have sufficient ductility during major earthquakes. Stiffness predictions were most accurate in Eurocode 5 (10 % average error) and least accurate in NZS1720.1 (32 % average error). Finally, a mechanics-based finite element model called HYST for the nailed connections is calibrated using the test results. The calibration parameters for each test setup are presented, and the calibrated HYST models can well capture complex mechanisms in the nailed connections in terms of strength and stiffness degradation and pinching behaviour.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".