Reply to the Discussion by H. Jiang and B. Fu on “Experimental study of concrete masonry infills bounded by steel frames”<sup>1</sup>Appears in the Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 39(10): 1168–1169 [doi: 10.1139/l2012-082].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors appreciate comments and input provided by the discussers on the discussed paper. The additional information presented in the discussion is in most part in line with the conclusions of the paper. However, there are a couple of points that we feel are worthy of clarification. Equation [3] in the discussion for diagonal strut width calculation is misquoted. The diagonal strut width equation given in the Canadian masonry design standard CSA S304.1-04 (CSA 2004) is expressed as w ¼ ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi a 2 þ a 2 p , rather than w = ah + al as suggested in the discussion. However, the discussion following this equation is still valid. While the diagonal strut width may be considered as the source of the large difference in design stiffness between the Canadian and American Standards (MSJC 2011), it is not correct to say that it also counts for the large difference in design strength between the two standards. In the Canadian standard, the corner crushing failure is evaluated based on the compressive strength of the diagonal strut, thus the width of diagonal strut plays an important role in the strength calculation. The discussed paper showed a mean test-to-design strength ratio of 2.32 based on the Canadian standard. The authors believe that this underestimate of strength is more attributed to the fact that the compressive strength of masonry is assumed to be 0:5f 0 m in the diagonal strut compression calculation. It is not a result of diagonal width value. On the other hand, the corner crushing strength in the American standard is calibrated using test results from experimental work conducted by Flanagan and Bennett (1999) on clay tiles infilled steel frames. The equation is simple to apply but does not contain an explicit diagonal width term. The diagonal width seems to be replaced by a constant term. While it provided strength values closer to those test results presented in the discussed paper than the CSA S304 equation, it is premature to conclude that this equation is equally applicable to infills of different material and geometry. More testing data covering a wide range of variables on infills should be studied to have an overall performance assessment. References
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 | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.041 | 0.050 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
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".