MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388531317 · doi:10.1080/15583058.2023.2277328

Simplified Micro-Modeling of a Masonry Cross-Vault for Seismic Assessment Using the Distinct Element Method

2023· article· en· W4388531317 on OpenAlexafffund
Yopi Prabowo Oktiovan, Lucy Davis, R. Wilson, A. Dell’Endice, Anjali Mehrotra, Bora Pulatsu, Daniele Malomo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Architectural Heritage · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMasonryStructural engineeringVault (architecture)Cross laminated timberFinite element methodEarthquake shaking tableEngineeringUnreinforced masonry building

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The assessment of the seismic performance of unreinforced masonry cross-vaults is still a challenge in numerical analysis, due to complex curved geometries and bond patterns, and uncertainties related to the selection of adequate modeling strategies, including but not limited to that of material properties, damping scheme, and unit/joint idealization. This paper presents the results of a collaborative effort to validate, against the shake table test of both unstrengthened and strengthened masonry cross-vault specimens as part of the SERA Project Blind Prediction and Post-diction Competition, various discontinuum-based numerical approaches. First, the geometry of the cross-vault is created using a Python-based computational framework to accurately represent the brick arrangement and the shape of the vault. Then, the geometry is converted into an assemblage of deformable blocks and analyzed using the Distinct Element Method (DEM). An elasto-softening contact model based on fracture energy is implemented in the masonry joints to simulate crushing, tensile, and shear failures. The performance of the proposed strategy, conceived for the unstrengthened configuration of the tested vault specimen and then adapted to include the presence of cementitious repairs, shows satisfactory agreement with both qualitative and quantitative experimental responses, also revealing critical insights and lessons learned through the blind/post-prediction exercise.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Architectural HeritageSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207