Seismic performance of multi-storey structures designed with cold-formed steel wood sheathed shear walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the widespread use of cold-formed steel (CFS) in Canada, the 2005 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) do not address the seismic design. Previous research conducted at McGill University resulted in the development of a design procedure and seismic force modification factors related to ductility and overstrength, Rd and Ro, for the CFS frame wood sheathed shear wall system. Based on this prior research, the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) included the design procedure and the force modification factors for the wood sheathed shear walls into the North American Lateral Standard for Cold-Formed Steel Framing (AISI S213). In order for this information to be included in the NBCC it was necessary to validate the design procedure, the R values and the 20 m height limit detailed in the AISI S213 by conducting dynamic analyses as well as dynamic tests. Fourteen structures (4, 6 & 7 storeys) were designed and modeled using two different software packages: Ruaumoko and SAPWood. Two different seismic force resisting systems were validated: CFS frame wood sheathed shear walls (Rd = 1.5, Ro = 1.7) and a combination system whereby wood sheathed shear walls and gypsum walls work together (Rd = 1.5, Ro = 1.7). Two seismically active regions in Canada were selected for the design of the structures: Montreal, QC and Vancouver, BC. The performance of the modeled structures was then evaluated based on the ATC-63 methodology developed for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the United States. Given the performance of the models, the shear wall design approach documented in AISI S213 was proven to be satisfactory according to the ATC-63 methodology. The walls provided the necessary shear resistance when subjected to the suite of earthquake records scaled beyond the design level excitation and the structures maintained interstorey drifts far below the recommended 2% limit under design level earthquakes. The seven storey structures proved that buildi
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".