Alternative Strategies to Enhance the Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete-Block Shear Wall Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, seven reinforced concrete-block shear walls with aspect ratios of 1.5 and 2.2 (two- and three-storey high) were tested under displacement-controlled cyclic loading. The response of rectangular, flanged, and end-confined walls, designed to have the same lateral resistance when subjected to the same axial load, is discussed. In general, high levels of ductility accompanied by relatively small strength degradation were observed in all walls with a significant increase in ductility and displacement capabilities for the flanged and end-confined walls compared to the rectangular ones. For both aspect ratios evaluated, the drift levels at 20% strength degradation were 1.0, 1.5, and 2.2% corresponding to the rectangular, the flanged, and the end-confined walls, respectively. The ductility values of the proposed flanged and end-confined walls were, respectively, 1.5 and 2 times those of their rectangular wall counterparts (with the same overall length and aspect ratio). In addition to the enhanced ductility, a saving of more than 40% in the amount of vertical reinforcement was achieved using the proposed alternative strategies while maintaining the same lateral wall resistance. Existing design clauses were used to predict the wall capacities using the American and the Canadian masonry codes and showed excellent agreement. This will facilitate adoption of the new construction categories with minimal modifications to existing code clauses. The test results indicate that higher ductility than the currently endorsed values by North American codes should be used for rectangular walls. Moreover, higher values should be expected when the proposed strategies are adopted which would significantly reduce the seismic demand on reinforced concrete-block 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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".