Seismic Performance Parameters for Reinforced Concrete-Block Shear Wall Construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of the current study is to analyze previously reported test results to evaluate equivalent plastic hinge lengths for concrete-block shear walls and to extract related seismic performance parameters. Inelastic curvatures at the base of the walls are the main source of plastic deformation for flexurally dominated walls. With adequate estimation of the plastic hinge length and more realistic values for inelastic curvatures at the base of the wall, top wall displacement can be predicted more accurately. For the walls analyzed, measured compressive strains close to the base of the wall at maximum load were significantly higher than the strains specified by North American codes. The strains, although may not alter the wall strength, significantly affect the displacement ductility at maximum load. The analysis showed that the equivalent plastic hinge length varied between approximately 30 and 60% of the wall length at a drift of 1%. The product of the seismic force modification factors (for ductility and overstrength) varied between 3 and 6. The plastic hinge length and the seismic force modification factors were found to depend not only on the factors prescribed in North American codes but on the amount of vertical reinforcement and axial stress level as well. This study draws a road map for further research to facilitate better understanding and provide more realistic methods to predict the seismic performance of masonry shear wall construction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".