Experimental investigation of the effects of different reinforcement configurations on the shear strength of reinforced concrete block masonry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reinforced concrete block masonry walls exhibit complex behaviour under lateral loading due to their composite nature and the interaction between their constituents, including units, mortar, grout, and reinforcement. The shear strength of reinforced masonry walls depends on various factors, including the properties of each constituent material, wall geometry, boundary conditions, and the presence of reinforcement with different configurations. International masonry design standards vary significantly in how they address the parameters influencing the shear capacity of reinforced masonry shear walls. Consequently, the predicted capacities show varying levels of conservatism when compared to experimental values. Given that masonry materials and construction practices are similar in the countries being compared, these discrepancies suggest differing interpretations of the significance of each parameter and possibly different philosophies regarding the balance between conservatism and accuracy in shear design. Therefore, this study investigated the influence of different reinforcement schemes on the shear strength of reinforced concrete block masonry (RM) assemblages with running bond. Forty-one concrete block masonry assemblages were tested under diagonal tension following the ASTM E519 to examine the effect of various parameters, namely, the presence of vertical or horizontal reinforcement, the vertical and horizontal reinforcement ratios, and the spacing and combination of vertical and horizontal reinforcement within the masonry assemblages. The behaviour of the masonry assemblages was evaluated based on the maximum shear stress and the corresponding shear strain, shear modulus, toughness, and pseudo-ductility. Furthermore, the effect of the studied parameters on the stress-strain curves, failure mechanisms, and crack propagation was assessed. The obtained maximum shear stresses of the tested concrete block masonry assemblages were compared with the nominal shear capacity calculated using codified equations of different design standards. The RM assemblages showed an enhancement in the shear behaviour, ductility, and distribution of cracks, especially when combining horizontal and vertical reinforcement. The results showed that adding vertical reinforcement improved the shear capacity of reinforced masonry assemblages by 21%, with an increase in the peak shear strain by 52%. Moreover, combining the vertical and horizontal reinforcement in the reinforced concrete block masonry assemblages increases the shear capacity by 15% with an enhancement in the maximum shear strain by 23%. The CSA S304–14, TMS 402/602–22, and NZS 4230 showed an underestimation of the actual shear capacity of masonry assemblages constructed in running bond and with vertical reinforcement by 177%, 138%, and 79%, respectively. Additionally, the results revealed the need for a re-evaluation of the above mentioned code equations that estimate the shear capacity for different configurations of concrete block masonry assemblages. The analyses aimed to provide insights into the effectiveness of different reinforcement configurations in enhancing the shear resistance of RM walls. The findings of this research contribute to the development of optimized design guidelines for reinforced masonry structures, thereby enhancing their overall seismic performance and safety. • Diagonal tension tested on concrete block masonry assemblages. • Effect of different reinforcement schemes on the shear strength of RM masonry. • Different failure mechanisms and crack patters were investigated. • Shear modulus, modulus of toughness and pseudo ductility were evaluated. • Combining vertical and horizontal reinforcements enhanced the mechanical properties.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it