Assessment of seismic design parameters for midply wood shear wall system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A midply shear wall provides greater lateral load capacity per unit length than a standard shear wall. The improved performance is achieved by placing the sheathing between wall stud members, which subjects the nails to double-shear when the wall is loaded in shear. Tests have shown that the average lateral load capacities and energy dissipations of midply walls can be more than three times that of standard shear walls, while their stiffness can be between two to three times the average stiffness of standard shear walls. A proposal for implementation of the midply wall system in wood design codes in North America is presented. Non-linear dynamic analyses of a four-storey wood-frame building were used to determine the seismic design parameters for midply shear walls. The analysis utilized a suite of 22 selected earthquake records scaled to the peak ground acceleration stipulated in the National Building Code of Canada 2005 for Vancouver, British Columbia. The probability of failure was determined for building built with both standard and midply shear walls. Using the standard shear walls as the bench mark, this study indicates that a ductility-related force modification factor R d = 3 could be safely assigned for the midply shear wall system to achieve the same safety level as the standard shear wall system.
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".