Seismic design criteria for CFS steel-sheathed shear walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current European earthquake standard EN1998-1 does not provide the seismic design criteria for cold formed steel (CFS) steel-sheathed shear walls, limiting their use as a lateral force resisting system in lightweight steel buildings. In order to overcome this lack of guidelines, a specific study has been performed to extend the applicability of the Effective Strip Method (ESM), given in North American standard AISI S400 to EN1998-1. The method evaluates the shear resistance of steel-sheathed shear walls and it is permitted only in USA & Mexico as an alternative to tabulated shear resistance for predefined wall configurations. In order to further validate its scope of application, it was applied to additional available experimental results of walls tested in Canada. Only for some configurations, the ESM does not give acceptable predictions. Furthermore, the ESM was applied following the European approach, to make its use possible in context of European seismic design methodology. The overstrength factor for the design of non-dissipative elements was evaluated. Based on the results, it is concluded that the ESM could be appropriate for the evaluation of resistance of steel-sheathed shear walls in Eurocodes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".