STR-976: EFFECT OF HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT ANCHORAGE END DETAIL ON SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF REINFORCED MASONRY SHEAR WALLS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most recent design codes for masonry structures necessitate the use of reinforced masonry (RM) shear walls in medium and high seismic areas. There are several factors that control the contribution of the horizontal reinforcement to the in-plane shear capacity of RM shear walls. One of these factors is its anchorage end detail. The current version of the Canadian Standards Association CSA S304-14 for design of masonry structures requires that the anchorage of the horizontal reinforcing bars in the plastic hinge region shall have a 90° or more standard hook at the ends of the wall. However, a 180° standard hook is required for ductile shear walls. On the other hand, some masonry design codes (e.g. New Zealand, NZS 4230:2004) permits a 90° anchorage hook for ductile walls. This paper discusses the results of three identical RM shear walls that were tested under in-plane axial compressive stress and cyclic lateral excitations. All the walls were dominated by shear failure before reaching their flexure capacity. Wall W-180° was constructed with a 180° hook while walls W-90° and W-Str had a 90° hook and straight bar. The test results show that a 180° hook is the most effective anchorage end detail in terms of lateral force capacity and ductility. However, wall W-Str reached a lateral resistance, Que, of 398 kN compared to 412 kN and 418 kN for walls W-90° and W-180°, respectively, with less than 5% difference. Moreover, wall W-180° achieved a high level of displacement ductility of 4.2 instead of 3.9 and 3.6 when using a 90° hook and straight bar at a drop in wall capacity to 80% of Que. More results are analyzed and presented in this paper according to force-based, displacement-based, and performance-based seismic design considerations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".