CFSFCystic Fibrosis Scholarship Foundation (est. 1999; Evanston, IL)
CFSFChristian Faculty and Staff Fellowship (Missouri)
CFSFCredit and Financial Services Fund (India)
CFSFCold Formed Steel Framing
CFSFCovenant First Step Fund (Houston, TX)
CFSFCape Fear Surfrider Foundation (North Carolina)
Copyright 1988-2018, All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
To investigate the impact of wall configurations on seismic behavior of CFSF walls, parameters such as sheathing thickness and fastener spacing are chosen, and these parameters presented significant influence on the performance of CFSF walls [12, 13].
Modeling the Steel-Sheathed CFSF Buildings and Test Validation
In fact, the dynamic behavior of the steel-sheathed CFSF structures is very complicated.
In this paper, the selected steel-sheathed CFSF buildings are modeled based on the simplified method, and the hysteresis parameters of the walls used in these buildings are generated from the shaking table tests conducted by Shamim and Rogers [13].
Four single-bay single-story steel-sheathed CFSF walls are selected from study of Shamim et al.
Fragility Analyses of These Steel-Sheathed CFSF Buildings
In order to quantify the seismic damage of these steel-sheathed CFSF buildings, it is important to define a proper damage measure which can be used to describe the damage level of the buildings.
To determine the logarithmic standard deviation [[beta].sub.R], the potential uncertainties associated with the steel-sheathed CFSF building should be considered and quantified, including aleatoric uncertainties (e.g., earthquakes, structural resistance, and defined performance limits) and epistemic uncertainty (e.
The relation between the [[theta].sub.max] of the steel-sheathed CFSF building and the [S.sub.a]([T.sub.1]) can be determined as
Los resultados de la CFSF (buena a moderada) vienen derivados de actuaciones humanas (vertidos, urbanizaciones, represas y construcciones puntuales en las orillas cauce) que impactan directamente sobre el cauce (Ollero et al., 2009; Garcia-Huaman et al., 2011).
La CR fue la que presento los valores mas bajos en relacion a la CFSF y la CC.
Imagenes de los sectores funcionales SF-01 (A), SF-02 (B), SF-03 (C), SF-04 (D), SF-05 (E), SF-06 (F), SF-07 (G), SF08 (H), e histogramas con las puntuaciones por apartado de cada sector (CFSF: Calidad Funcional del Sistema Fluvial; CC: Calidad del Cauce; CR: Calidad de Riberas).