MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Finite element modelling of contact in rubble stone masonry

2013· article· en· W1968766188 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Andrea C. Isfeld, Nigel G. Shrive

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMasonryRubbleMicromodelFinite element methodMortarStructural engineeringLinear elasticityGeotechnical engineeringCore (optical fiber)Materials scienceGeologyStiffnessGeometryEngineeringComposite materialMathematicsPorosity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-wythe masonry walls are a common structural component of heritage buildings. Typically constructed with two dressed outer wythes and a rubble core, these structures are susceptible to environmental degradation, as infiltration of water coupled with freeze-thaw action can break down the existing mortar which can then be flushed out of the wall. The resulting un-bonded core material applies pressure on the outer wythes, leading to lateral displacements and possible failure of the walls. Study of these deformations, and the effects of potential intervention methods through finite element modelling, can ensure adequate measures are selected and implemented. With the core being composed of rounded or fragmented stones and containing little of the original mortar, failure is dominated by rotation and sliding of the stones, rather than failure of the stone units. A dynamic simplified micromodel captures the geometry of the individual stones within a cross-section of a wall from the Prince of Wales fort in northern Canada, allowing translation of the units under self-weight. Linear elastic material properties and frictional contact conditions reduce the complexity of the model while adequately representing the observed conditions. As mesh density is known to impact the results of contact problems greatly, a small sample of stones from the wall has been studied using 8 models containing between 778 and 11701 linear elements. High mesh densities are required to approximate the curved geometry, and reduce faceting due to the flat element edges. These models are run under two separate time steps, in the first the load is applied and in the second the parts are allowed time to reach equilibrium. The resulting displacements of the small models have been examined and compared, optimizing the mesh density for the given sample, which can then be applied to the full cross section.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207