Modeling Of Masonry In-Filled R/C Frame To Evaluate Seismic Performance Of Existing Building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper deals with different modeling aspects of masonry infill: no infill model, Layered shell infill model, and strut infill model. These models consider the complicated behavior of the in-filled plane frames under lateral load similar to an earthquake load. Three strut infill models are used: NBCC (2005) strut infill model, ASCE/SEI 41-06 strut infill model and proposed strut infill model based on modification to Canadian, NBCC (2005) strut infill model. Pushover and modal analyses of a masonry infill concrete frame with a single storey and an existing 5-storey RC building have been carried out by using different models for masonry infill. The corresponding hinge status, the value of base shear at target displacement as well as their dynamic characteristics have been determined and compared. A validation of the structural numerical models for the existing 5-storey RC building has been achieved by comparing the experimentally measured and the analytically estimated natural frequencies and their mode shapes. This study shows that ASCE/SEI 41-06 equation underestimates the values for the equivalent properties of the diagonal strut while Canadian, NBCC (2005) equation gives realistic values for the equivalent properties. The results indicate that both ASCE/SEI 41-06 and Canadian, NBCC (2005) equations for strut infill model give over estimated values for dynamic characteristic of the building. Proposed modification to Canadian, NBCC (2005) equation shows that the fundamental dynamic characteristic values of the building are nearly similar to the corresponding values using layered shell elements as well as measured field results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".