Strategies to Reduce and Quantify Seismic Damage in Controlled Rocking Masonry Walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Controlled rocking systems have been used in numerous structures around the world as a seismic force-resisting system. In a controlled rocking wall system, the wall is allowed to uplift from the foundation during seismic events, thus reducing the wall’s lateral stiffness and minimizing its corresponding seismic force demands. This rocking mechanism is often controlled using posttensioning (PT) tendons, resulting in negligible residual deformations compared to conventional walls (i.e., with fixed bases). For these reasons, promising strides have been taken to apply the concept of controlled rocking systems to masonry walls; however, several issues have been encountered when using PT tendons due to the brittle nature of the masonry material in compression. To address this, the current study aims to reduce damage and improve the performance of controlled rocking masonry walls (CRMWs) by omitting PT, instead relying on gravity loads and energy dissipation to control the seismic response. Three strategies to achieve this improved performance are proposed and investigated. The first strategy involves using externally mounted, replaceable energy dissipation devices; the second strategy introduces a steel base for the rocking wall; and the third strategy considers confinement plates in the rocking toe region of the wall. To assess these strategies, the study develops and validates a numerical model to capture the performance of previously tested CRMWs. The model is then used to develop and experimentally validate an index for masonry walls to quantify their damage based on numerical results. Next, a suite of 20 CRMWs is designed, 5 of which incorporate PT tendons while the remaining 15 walls omit PT and incorporate one or more of the proposed strategies to reduce damage. Numerical models of all of the archetype walls are subjected to reversed cyclic loading protocols, and the amount of damage incurred is compared across each archetype wall. The results demonstrate that the proposed modeling technique and damage index are effective at capturing the response and quantifying damage in CRMWs and that the proposed strategies result in a lower damage alternative to posttensioned CRMWs (PT-CRMWs).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".