Upgrading the Seismic Performance of Reinforced Masonry Columns Using CFRP Wraps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared with reinforced concrete, relatively fewer experimental studies address the behavior of masonry columns under combined axial load and cyclic flexure. There exist reinforced concrete masonry (RCM) columns that are part of the moment resisting system of masonry structures that are in need of seismic upgrade. Wrapping such susceptible RCM columns with carbon fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRP) is expected to enhance the seismic behavior of reinforced masonry columns considerably. This paper focuses on assessing the seismic performance of RCM columns wrapped with CFRP. In this experimental study, six 1.4-m reinforced masonry columns were constructed and tested when subjected to constant axial force and cyclic lateral excitations. The columns had a cross-section of 390 mm×390 mm and were constructed using bull-nosed concrete units. The first column had no CFRP wraps and was used as a control specimen whereas the other five columns were wrapped using different layers of CFRP sheets or different wrapping schemes. From the tests, it was observed that wrapping the masonry columns with CFRP wraps enhanced the seismic performance of the columns by offering more ductile behavior, increasing both strength and energy dissipation capacity.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".