MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Out-of-Plane Strengthening of Unreinforced Masonry Walls with Openings

2004· article· en· W2061235323 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Ghobarah, Khaled Galal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcMaster University
KeywordsMasonryMasonry veneerUnreinforced masonry buildingMaterials scienceStructural engineeringMortarComposite materialSTRIPSReinforced concreteFibre-reinforced plasticStructural loadGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collapse of unreinforced masonry (URM) walls is the cause of many casualties during extreme loading events. The objective of this current research was to investigate effective and practical approaches for strengthening URM block walls with openings to resist extreme out-of-plane loads. Five full-scale masonry block walls were constructed. The walls had different opening configurations such as a single center window, one window off center, two windows, a wide window and a door. The walls were tested when subjected to uniformly distributed lateral load up to failure. The walls were then strengthened using carbon fiber-reinforced polymer laminate strips and then retested. The walls were set up in a vertical test frame and were subjected to cyclic out-of-plane distributed pressure using an airbag. Failure of the unstrengthened URM block wall was along the mortar joints. In the strengthened walls, failure occurred in the mortar joints as well as in concrete blocks near the carbon strips. The lateral load carrying capacity of the strengthened walls was found to be significantly higher than that of the unstrengthened walls and had much more ductile performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites for ConstructionSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207