MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991446038

Higher capacity cold-formed steel sheathed and framed shear walls for mid-rise buildings: part 1

2018· dissertation· en· W6991446038 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShear wallFraming (construction)Shear (geology)Cold-formed steelDuctility (Earth science)Shear force
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of cold-formed steel (CFS) for seismic force-resisting systems (SFRS), including shear walls, has increased throughout the years. However, the design provisions for CFS sheathed and framed shear walls available in the North American CFS standards (AISI S400 and AISI S240) are limited by the shear walls’ sheathing and framing thicknesses. Design guidelines for CFS sheathed and framed shear walls for the purpose of mid-rise construction (up to 5 storeys) are still absent from the standards. The main objective of this research program was to develop a design procedure for CFS sheathed and framed shear walls to achieve higher capacity and ductility to resist the higher forces experienced in mid-rise construction. The developed design procedure is proposed to be included in the provisions of the AISI S240 Standard and AISI S400 Standard.The design procedure was developed by determining the shear strength of full-scale shear wall specimens built and tested at McGill University under monotonic and cyclic loading protocols. A total of 31 specimens, with varying building parameters, were constructed using thicker sheathing and framing members than what is currently available for design. The specimens were built using two new shear wall configurations (double-sheathed and centre-sheathed) to address out-of-plane forces experienced by shear walls tested in previous research programs.The centre-sheathed shear wall configuration, with a confined and concentrically placed sheathing panel, reached a shear resistance four times higher than the design values tabulated in the current standards. The ductility of these CFS shear walls was also significantly improved. A preliminary equation-based nominal shear strength prediction method has been developed for the centre-sheathed shear walls; the method reflects the shear wall’s different configuration and superior behaviour. Following the test data analysis, preliminary design parameters for Limit States Design (LSD) used in Canada and for Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) used in the USA and Mexico were determined, including the load resistance factor,  and the factor of safety. In addition, capacity based design parameters were determined for seismic design in Canada. These parameters included the “test-based” seismic performance factors, Rd and Ro, which were found to be 2.8 and 1.5 respectively. The superior performance of the centre-sheathed configuration showed its promising potential as a new design option for higher capacity CFS shear walls. However, before a potential implementation into mid-rise construction, further research is needed in order for a complete design procedure to be developed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207