MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410425913 · doi:10.70803/001c.138281

Development of Self-Reinforced Concrete Block for Improved Shear Wall Ductility

2017· article· en· W4410425913 on OpenAlexaff
M. F. Smith, Michael J. Tait, Robert G. Drysdale

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Masonry Society Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShear wallDuctility (Earth science)Reinforced concreteMaterials scienceBlock (permutation group theory)Structural engineeringShear (geology)Composite materialEngineeringGeometryMathematicsCreep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes development of a new Self-Reinforced Block (SR Block) designed to achieve greatly increased compressive strains in order to enhance shear wall ductility. Design of SR Block to provide confinement of block concrete is presented. Proof-of-concept block making showed that reinforcing devices could be molded within the body of a hollow block using standard block making equipment. Prism tests using these SR Block showed equal strength to unreinforced block at 2% strain and over 80% strength at 3% strain. A spiral wire type of reinforcing device was molded into block for construction of a full scale shear wall. Tests of companion block prisms showed over 40% increase in compressive strength and over 80% retained strength at 3% strain. Fully reversed cyclic testing of the SR Block shear wall reached a ratio of ultimate deflection to yield deflection of 7.0 where ultimate deflection was defined as the point when post-yield capacity had decreased to 80% of the peak value. Using an idealized bilinear equal energy response, this ratio changed to 5.5. Compared to an identical wall utilizing standard block, the SR Block wall had superior ductility and capacity maintenance. Even so, examination of the wall after termination of loading showed that the ductility limit had not been reached but rather that resistance to lateral load had decreased due to a shear softening of the wall. A duplicate wall with improved shear resistance gave an idealized deflection ratio of 8.3. The implications for seismic design are discussed.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Masonry Society JournalSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207