MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resilience Evaluation of Seismically Detailed Reinforced Concrete-Block Shear Walls for Blast-Risk Assessment

2015· article· en· W1886077247 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Performance of Constructed Facilities · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Response to Dynamic Loads
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Masonry Design CentreMcMaster University
KeywordsStructural engineeringMasonryShear wallResilience (materials science)Ductility (Earth science)Unreinforced masonry buildingExplosive materialReinforced concreteEngineeringMaterials scienceCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it