Behaviour of hollow concrete masonry walls with one-course bond beams subjected to concentric and eccentric concentrated loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three-dimensional finite element models of unreinforced hollow concrete masonry walls with one-course bond beams subjected to concentrated loading have been analyzed. The walls were modelled with different loading plate sizes, different loading locations along the wall (at the midpoint of the wall, at the end of the wall, and between these points), and different out-of-plane eccentricities (e = 0, t/6, and t/3). The hollow block units, mortar, grout, and bond beam blocks in the walls were modelled separately. Both smeared and discrete cracking methods have been utilized for predicting cracking under load. Geometric and material nonlinearities and damage due to progressive cracking were taken into account in the analyses. The predicted failure modes and ultimate capacities of the walls with the concentric concentrated load applied at the midpoint or at the end of the wall compared very well with the experimental results. When the load was between the midpoint and the end of the wall, the predicted ultimate capacity was between those for the load at the midpoint and at the end. The strength of the walls decreases with increasing out-of-plane eccentricities.Key words: finite element models, hollow masonry, smeared and discrete cracking models, concentrated load, loading locations, out-of-plane eccentricities.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".