Seismic Response Modification Factors for Reinforced Masonry Structural Walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current North American design standards provide seismic force modification factors for the rectangular masonry structural walls category only; no similar provisions for flanged and end-confined masonry structural walls exist. This study demonstrates that seismic force reduction factor (R) values calculated for rectangular walls was close to 5.0, which is consistent with the value stipulated by the ASCE 7, and was 36 and 90% higher for the corresponding flanged and end-confined walls. The deflection amplification factor (Cd) values calculated for rectangular walls were higher than specified in the ASCE 7 for the special reinforced masonry wall category. Values of the ductility-related force modification factor (Rd) for flanged and end-confined walls were, respectively, at least 30 and 100% higher than those of rectangular walls specified in the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC). Quantification of the seismic response parameters within this study is expected to facilitate adoption of the flanged and end-confined wall categories in North American masonry codes as a cost-effective technique to enhance the seismic performance of masonry 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".