On the Dynamic Behaviour of Strengthened Stone Masonry Walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unreinforced stone masonry is common in heritage structures worldwide. Unfortunately, these structures are susceptible to failure or severe damage when subject to dynamic or seismic loading. Conservation of historic structures is a challenge as the heritage and cultural values need to be preserved while the advent of new seismic codes may require major strengthening to be implemented. The new seismic codes demand high seismic strength and ductility for such structures, whereas neither the strength nor the ductility of an existing stone masonry building can be quantified easily. The Parliament buildings of Canada fall into this category. Therefore, an extensive experimental program was carried out to investigate the dynamic and seismic behaviours of stone walls representative of Canada’s Parliament buildings. The walls were constructed of double stone wythes with the cavity between being filled with weak mortar, shards and small stones, constituting a rubble core of the walls. The experimental program included in-plane quasi-static, free vibration and high frequency loadings, together with out-of-plane shake table tests. The tests were aimed at investigating the integrity, strength, damping, stiffness degradation, and ductility of the walls. Different potential strengthening methods were assessed, methods that would minimize structural intervention and preserve the heritage values of the building. The methods involved different metallic anchors and traditional stone interlocking to tie the two outer wythes together. Fortunately, the stone walls exhibited satisfactory performance in all cases. In addition, the test results suggested that plain un-strengthened stone walls had strength and other characteristics similar to those of the rehabilitated walls, in the range of the imposed load scenarios.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".