Resilience Evaluation of Seismically Detailed Reinforced Concrete-Block Shear Walls for Blast-Risk Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased demand for resilient infrastructure under accidental or deliberate explosions has resulted in the urgent need to quantify the performance of both existing and new building components under such extreme loading events. The current study focuses on evaluating the resilience of reinforced masonry (RM) shear wall systems under blast, which is accomplished by quantifying the walls’ blast response in the out-of-plane direction and the resulting damage levels. In seismic zones, such RM walls are detailed to resist in-plane loads in a ductile manner, and thus minimal damage is usually expected. Given that blast resistant design of civilian buildings only recently has been formally introduced in North American design standards, quantifying the out-of-plane response and ductility capacities of RM shear walls has not been common practice in mainstream building design. In this paper, a nonlinear single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) model is developed to predict the out-of-plane response of RM wall components under blast loading. The SDOF model is first validated by using live explosive (free-field) test results. Subsequently, the model is used to perform a numerical investigation beyond the range of experimental parameters adopted in the test program, by considering a number of wall design characteristics such as wall reinforcement ratio, concrete block size and strength, wall height, and reinforcement arrangements; a wider range of design basis threat levels––identified by charge-mass and standoff-distance combinations––is also considered. In general, the study indicates that RM walls are capable of withstanding substantial explosions, which would result in different damage intensities depending on the wall vulnerability and blast hazard levels. The study also shows that significant reduction in the wall out-of-plane response can be achieved by using two layers of reinforcement instead of the typical single layer in RM walls, even in the case of reduced reinforcement ratio. The SDOF model is also used to develop RM wall performance charts that can be further refined to serve as design guidelines for the purpose of blast risk mitigation in future editions of the North American blast design standards. Finally, the findings from this study indicate that RM walls that are detailed to respond in a ductile manner under in-plane seismic loads might not necessarily exhibit a ductile response when subjected to out-of-plane blast loads. The latter observation highlights the importance of adopting a holistic multihazard design approach when evaluating the vulnerability and resilience of building systems under extreme events.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".