Out-of-Plane Performance of Reinforced Masonry Shear Walls Constructed with Boundary Elements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reinforced masonry shear walls with boundary elements have been introduced recently as a seismic force–resisting system as alternative to traditional reinforced masonry shear walls with rectangular cross sections. The introduction of the boundary elements enhances the wall’s in-plane performance because of the confinement action of the horizontal steel ties within the boundary elements that increase the compressive strain capacity and thus improve the overall wall displacement ductility. However, the performance of such reinforced masonry shear wall system has not yet been well investigated experimentally or analytically under out-of-plane loading (e.g., blast loads). Therefore, this study evaluated the contribution of boundary elements to the wall out-of-plane performance in terms of enhanced ultimate resistance load and displacement capacities. Three reinforced masonry shear walls with boundary elements, with different reinforcement ratios and distributions, were tested under quasi-static loading to evaluate the wall displacement response, mode of failure, damage state, ductility capacity, and energy absorption. Furthermore, a numerical model was developed and used to generate additional results of walls with similar in-plane or out-of-plane load resistance to those tested experimentally, but with rectangular cross sections, to allow for a performance comparison. The results showed that reinforced masonry shear walls with boundary elements achieved higher ductility capacity and energy absorption levels compared to their counterparts with rectangular cross sections. This study presents key experimental and numerical data that will facilitate quantifying several aspects pertaining to the out-of-plane performance of reinforced masonry shear walls with boundary elements within the next editions of relevant North American codes and standards.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".