Inelastic performance of screw connected cold-formed steel strap braced walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Guidelines that address the seismic design of cold-formed steel structures are not provided in the 2005 NBCC or in the CSA S136 Specification. The revised version of AISI S213 does, however, contain Canadian provisions for the seismic design of strap braced walls. This standard specifies seismic force modification factors and height limits for the two categories of diagonal strap braced (concentric) walls: Limited ductility (LD) Rd = 2.0, Ro = 1.3, building height limit of 20 m, and Conventional construction (CC) Rd = 1.25, Ro = 1.3, building height limit of 15 m for low seismic zones. In order to evaluate the lateral in-plane behaviour of screw connected type LD CFS strap braced walls, and the Rd, Ro and building height limits given in AISI S213, a total of 30 wall specimens (2.44 m x 2.44 m) detailed following capacity design principals were fabricated and subjected to monotonic and CUREE reversed cyclic loading protocols. To avoid net cross section fracture at brace connections two different detailing methods were applied; special screw patterns and braces with reduced strap widths. Similarly, to fully investigate the behaviour of the braced walls tests of specimens having fuse braces, reinforced tracks, different holddown positions and brace screws attached to the interior framing studs were carried out. Furthermore, two different approaches were used to confirm the seismic force modification factors in AISI S213. Initially, Rd and Ro were calculated for type LD walls based on the ductility and overstrength measured from the wall tests following the procedure used by Mitchell et al. This was followed by an evaluation of the R-values and height limit of the
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".