MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2494834010 · doi:10.2495/safe-v6-n2-438-448

Uncertainty in the numerical modelling of masonry triplet tests under dynamic loading

2016· article· en· W2494834010 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Mendoza Puchades, R. Judge, Greg Beattie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasonryDynamic loadingStructural engineeringMortarRetrofittingWorkmanshipComputer scienceEngineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Masonry structures have been broadly used worldwide for centuries.These structures are likely to be subjected to seismic movements, malicious or accidental blast and/or impact loading.Expanding the current body of knowledge of how masonry structures perform under such conditions and developing reliable and robust modelling techniques is essential to improve both the efficiency and safety of the design and retrofitting of such structures.A great deal of research is currently ongoing to understand the behaviour of masonry under shock and impact loading, and this is proving to be a challenging endeavour.Masonry construction on the whole is surrounded by a high degree of variability ranging from the heterogeneity of the materials used, the degree of workmanship during construction and the uncertainty regarding the physical and mechanical properties of the brick-to-mortar interface.Masonry is known to experience a dynamic enhancement of its strength properties when subjected to impact loading and dynamic increase factors (DIFs) have been used to adjust static masonry properties accordingly when subjected to this type of loading.These DIFs are derived from sparse experimental tests and their use can be severely limited to the conditions of the tests performed, and the results obtained can carry a high degree of uncertainty.This paper considers the uncertainty present at the brick-to-mortar interface, by using Monte Carlo simulations, when subjected to dynamic loading in a standard triplet test using LS-DYNA.The results of the modelling have been compared, contrasted and discussed for use in a larger research project on the robust characterisation of masonry structures when subjected to blast and seismic loading.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Safety and Security EngineeringSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207