Seismic Performance Parameter Quantification of Shear-Critical Reinforced Concrete Masonry Squat Walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In North America, the design of reinforced masonry (RM) shear walls as a seismic force-resisting system (SFRS) is very conservative in terms of quantifying the wall’s shear strength and ductility capacity. In the current study, eight full-scale squat RM walls were tested at McMaster University under quasi-static reversed cyclic loading to quantify their shear strength, idealized displacement ductility, drift-damage relationships, lateral stiffness degradation, and hysteretic damping. The test walls demonstrated shear-strength capacities up to 200% of those predicted by the Canadian Standards Association’s (CSA) masonry design code. In addition, the results demonstrated that the Canadian shear strength expression was, on average, 32 and 34% more conservative than the Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC) and the New Zealand Standards (NZS) design codes for masonry, respectively. Moreover, the simplified modified compression field theory (SMCFT), adopted directly from the Canadian concrete design code, gave the most accurate predictions of the tested walls’ shear strength compared with masonry code expressions. Using bilinear idealization, the wall displacement ductility levels were found to range from 3.8 to 9.0 with corresponding equivalent viscous damping ratios of 8.7–19.2%, respectively. Design-oriented expressions were developed to relate the lateral stiffness degradation to ductility and drift levels. The wall drift-damage relationships were presented in fragility curve format for two predefined damage states. In general, the study attempts to shed some light on the behavior of this understudied SFRS (i.e., RM squat walls) to facilitate its adoption in the next generation of performance-based seismic design codes in North America.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".