Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings framed with Cold-Formed Steel Center-Sheathed Shear Walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cold-formed steel (CFS) buildings continue to gain popularity for low-rise to mid-rise developments across North America. To enhance the seismic performance of CFS buildings, high-performance shear walls have been developed with steel sheathing enclosed within the center of the chord stud packs. Previous cyclic loading tests of the center-sheathed shear walls exhibited significant improvements in strength and ductility compared to other steel-sheathed shear wall systems used in CFS construction. In this study, archetype buildings framed with CFS center-sheathed shear walls were modelled in OpenSees and subjected to pushover analyses to assess their seismic performance.Numerical models of the thirteen previously tested CFS center-sheathed shear walls were developed in OpenSees. The models captured the behaviour of the shear walls through representative braces and were calibrated to the test results using the Pinching4 material model. The models were scaled linearly to the ultimate strengths calculated from the Modified Effective Strip + Frame method to account for the increased shear wall height that resulted from designing the archetypes with ledger framing. Seven archetype buildings were designed: three located in Vancouver and four located in Montreal to represent Canadian cities of high and moderate seismicity, respectively. The archetypes ranged from two to eight storeys and were designed to satisfy the strength and drift requirements for the seismic loads calculated from the 2020 version of the National Building Code of Canada. Following the initial steps of the Performance-Based Unified (PBU) procedure, pushover analyses were conducted for each archetype to evaluate the overstrength and ductility behaviour of the center-sheathed shear walls. Results show that an overstrength-related modification factor of 1.6 efficiently satisfies the preliminary seismic performance evaluation of the PBU procedure. The results of this study will serve beneficial for future full-scale PBU evaluations to determine appropriate seismic force modification factors for the CFS center-sheathed shear walls
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".