Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seismic design provisions for cold-formed steel sheathed (CFS) shear walls are not available in the NBCC or in the CSA-S136 Standard. This limits engineers in designing with such walls in seismic zones across Canada. The objective of this research was to develop design provisions for steel sheathed shear walls constructed with CFS framing. To develop such standards, 54 walls of various configurations were tested at McGill University in the summer of 2008. The walls varied in framing and sheathing thickness, detailing and aspect ratio. The tests carried out at McGill were used to obtain design values for Canada and to confirm the US values that are listed in the AISI S213 Lateral Design Standard. There were two types of tests carried out; monotonic and reversed cyclic. The monotonic tests consisted of a static load simulation to eliminate any strain rate effects and the wall specimen was pushed laterally to its limits. The second type of test followed the CUREE reversed cyclic protocol where the wall was loaded laterally in both directions following a series of increasing displacement amplitudes up to failure. Test results were incorporated with data obtained from the US to determine nominal shear resistance values, corresponding resistance factor, overstrength and ductility factors as well as seismic force modification factors. The test data was analyzed using the Equivalent Energy Elastic-Plastic (EEEP) approach which provides an equivalent bi-linear elastic plastic curve to the non linear behaviour exhibited by shear wall tests by considering the total energy dissipation. Based on the test results, a material resistance factor, phi, of 0.7, an overstrength value of 1.4, a ductility-related force modification factor, Rd, of 2.5 and an overstrength-related force modification factor, Ro, of 1.7 are recommended. Dynamic analysis of multi-storey structures was carried out to validate the recommended R-values and to determine height limits. According to FEMA P695, which provides a methodology for determining the lateral performance of lateral framing systems, the test based seismic force modification factors were shown not to provide an acceptable level of safety against collapse. Subsequent analyses resulted in a recommendation of an Rd value of 2.0 and an Ro value of 1.3. A maximum height limit of 15m is also proposed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".