MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Experimental Research Studies on Seismic Behaviour of Confined Masonry Structures: Current Status and Future Needs

2023· preprint· en· W4379157714 on OpenAlexaff
Juan José Pérez Gavilán, Svetlana Brzev, Eric Fernando Espinosa Cazarín, Sara Ganzerli, Daniel Quiun, Matthew T Reiter

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasonryUnreinforced masonry buildingGeologyStructural engineeringGeotechnical engineeringSeismic analysisStatistical analysisSeismic loadingEngineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Confined masonry (CM) is a construction system which consists of masonry wall panels enclosed by vertical and horizontal reinforced concrete confining elements. The presence of these confining elements distinguishes CM from unreinforced masonry system and makes this technology suitable for construction of structures in regions subjected to intense seismic or wind actions. CM construction has been used in many countries and regions, and has performed well in past earthquakes. The purpose of the paper is to review past research studies related to the seismic in-plane and out-of-plane behaviour of CM structures. The authors have identified the key design and construction parameters which were considered in past research studies and have performed statistical analyses to establish their influence on the seismic performance of CM buildings. For the purpose of this study the authors have compiled databases of previous experimental studies on CM wall specimens which were used for statistical analyses. Finally, the paper discusses research gaps and needs for future research studies which would contribute to the understanding of seismic behaviour and failure mechanisms of CM walls.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207