Experimental assessment of the in-plane cyclic response of flanged partially grouted reinforced masonry shear walls failing in flexure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the economic benefits of partially grouted reinforced masonry shear wall (PG-RMSW) systems in low-rise buildings, using such a system in mid- and high-rise buildings is still questionable. This is because the literature lacks comprehensive studies investigating different seismic design provisions adopted for PG-RMSWs failing in flexure in the North American masonry design standards (i.e., TMS 402/602–22 and CSA S304–14) to design rectangular and flanged PG-RMSWs. Most of the conducted studies targeted fully grouted reinforced masonry shear walls (FG-RMSWs). They were then adopted for PG-RMSWs with some modifications and conservatism that do not always reflect the actual case. Accordingly, this study aims to experimentally explore and quantify the influence of increasing the shear span-to-depth ratio ( M/(Q×d v ) ) on the in-plane cyclic response of flanged PG-RMSWs made with concrete masonry units and failing in flexure. In this regard, two flanged PG-RMSWs with similar cross-section dimensions and details of reinforcement and different shear span-to-depth ratios (2.54 and 5.08) designed to fail in flexure were tested under a constant axial load, quasistatic cyclic displacement and cyclic top moment. It can be shown that increasing M/(Q×d v ) for flanged PG-RMSWs can result in an overall enhanced behavior compared with those with lower M/(Q×d v ) . In particular, it results in the enhancement of the behavior of the tested walls in terms of propagation of damage, displacement ductility, stiffness degradation, axial compressive strain, curvature, flexural and shear contribution in displacement, and finally, energy dissipation and hysteretic damping. This shall contribute to the supporting evidence that PG-RMSWs can perform well in mid- and high-rise buildings. Furthermore, this allows for the modification of clause 16.8.5.2 in CSA S304–14 to allow partial grouting of plastic hinges of PG-RMSWs of high shear span-to-depth ratio ( M/(Q×d v ) ). ● Two slender flanged PG-RMSWs were tested under quasistatic cyclic loading. ● Two shear span-to-depth ratios (2.54 and 5.08) were selected. ● An axial load, cyclic displacement, and cyclic top moment were applied to the walls. ● Increasing M/(Q×d v ) for flanged PG-RMSWs can result in enhanced behavior. ● The modification of clause 16.8.5.2 in CSA S304-14 is proposed.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".