Calibrated Comparison of the Seismic Behavior of Masonry Walls with King Kong Bricks vs. Tambourine Bricks Using Nonlinear Simulation In ETABS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Lima, the informal construction of confined masonry walls with non-standard materials, such as King Kong bricks, is a widespread practice that raises concerns regarding seismic safety.This study presents a calibrated numerical comparison between two full-scale confined masonry walls with identical geometry: one constructed with standardized King Kong bricks and the other with King Kong bricks, commonly used in informal buildings.Both walls were modeled in ETABS 22 using a pivot hysteresis model , calibrated with experimental results from cyclic tests.Nonlinear static analyses were performed under increasing reversible lateral loads.Key seismic performance indicators were extracted from the simulated hysteresis curves : initial lateral stiffness, maximum shear capacity, strength and strain ductility, and accumulated dissipated energy.The results indicate that the King Kong brick wall exhibited greater stiffness, higher shear strength, and better energy dissipation capacity compared to the tambourine brick wall.The latter showed early stiffness degradation, low energy absorption, and lower ductility, reflecting poor seismic performance.The study highlights the influence of brick type on structural performance and demonstrates the usefulness of calibrated ETABS simulations as an accessible and effective tool for assessing the nonlinear behavior of confined masonry walls in contexts where experimental testing is unavailable.The findings support the need to raise regulatory awareness and promote structural interventions in informal construction areas.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".