Seismic collapse risk assessment and fragility analysis of reinforced masonry core walls with boundary elements using the FEMA P695 methodology
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
In the past, the primary objective of structural design codes was centred around ensuring human life safety, with a strong focus on preventing structural collapse. This approach predominantly relied on force- or strength-based criteria as the basis for design. Nevertheless, a notable shift has occurred recently, transitioning the design philosophy from 'strength' towards a 'performance'-based approach. This shift signifies a growing recognition that strength and performance are not identical. However, to adopt the performance-based seismic design approach, it is essential to develop precise models for estimating damage and potential losses associated with various seismic force-resisting systems (SFRSs). Fragility functions are widely interpreted among the most prevalent damage and loss models. They establish a crucial link between specific demand parameters and the likelihood of exceeding various damage states. Although reinforced masonry (RM) structures have recently gained popularity, the seismic design of mid- to high-rise RM structures is still challenging because it requires a reliable SFRS capable of providing the needed ductility and capacity. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to evaluate the key seismic performance parameters (i.e., system overstrength and ductility) and to perform a collapse capacity risk assessment of reinforced masonry core walls with boundary elements (RMCW+BEs) as the main SFRS in RM structures. The current study utilizes the applied element method (AEM) implemented in the Extreme Loading for Structures software (ELS) to model three RM structures with various heights (10-, 15-, and 20-story buildings). Nonlinear pseudo- static pushover analysis was performed to quantify the ductility and overstrength of the proposed RM system following the FEMA P695 guidelines. In addition, an incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) was carried out to assess the seismic collapse risk of RMCW+BEs by generating system-level-based fragility curves. The results showed that the proposed RM system provides the needed ductility, overstrength and deformation capacity for a ductile SFRS for typical mid- and high-rise RM buildings. Furthermore, the developed collapse fragility curves verified excellent seismic performance, negligible collapse probability values and high reserved collapse capacity at the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) design level. The findings of this study significantly contribute toward adopting RMCW+BEs as an effective SFRS for typical RM buildings in the next generations of North American masonry design standards. • Seismic collapse risk assessment and fragility analysis of RMCW+BEs are conducted using FEMA P695. • The AEM method is utilized to carry out risk assessment of RM buildings. • RMCW+BEs showed can maintain the needed system ductility and strength. • Incremental dynamic analysis is carried out for RM buildings with RMCW+BEs. • RMCW+BEs can be adequately used as an effective seismic force resisting system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it