Experimental evaluation of the mechanical parameters for seismic assessment of traditional brick and stone masonry buildings in eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eastern Canada has a large stock of old unreinforced masonry buildings, made with brick or stone and with architectural heritage value.To reduce the potential earthquake induced damage to these URM load-bearing walls structures, architects and engineers face the challenge of evaluating their lateral resistance and seismic performance.Evaluation of URM walls lateral resistance is also key information in damage prediction for seismic risk studies.However, there is limited information regarding the mechanical properties of URM walls, leading to difficulty in providing a reliable prediction of their seismic resistance.This paper presents an experimental programme initiated to evaluate the mechanical parameters for seismic assessment of typical traditional brick and stone URM buildings.The first phase aims to characterize the mechanical properties of the masonry and its constituent materials: manufactured moulded bricks typically used as replicas of traditional masonry, limestone blocks and cement-lime mortar used to match the mechanical properties of the original traditional cement-lime mortar.The second phase evaluates the diagonal shear strength of brick or stone masonry wallets.The third phase evaluates the lateral forcedeformation behaviour of representative wall specimens under cyclic loading to capture the complex inplane dynamic response and nonlinear behaviour of the masonry.Results are compared with predictive relations between the constituent material and the masonry mechanical properties.Although most equations from standards could predict the flexural failure mode of the masonry walls tested under cyclic loading, they all tend to overestimate the lateral resistance by up to 38%. 1
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".