Design of carbon fibre reinforced polymer post-tensioned masonry diaphragm retaining walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two masonry diaphragm retaining walls were constructed on the University of Calgary campus and post-tensioned with carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) tendons. As these are the first masonry diaphragm walls post-tensioned with CFRP tendons outside of a laboratory, one objective in the design was to provide a wide margin of safety, especially concerning the effective, or sustained, prestressing force and losses. The tendons are unbonded, so guidance chairs were placed during construction to meet the requirements of the clauses expected in the next edition of the Canadian masonry design code. Research has shown that the strength of masonry to resist shear in the webs is enhanced by the normal stress induced by post-tensioning, so this was used in the design. The webs of the walls interlock with the flanges, imposing restrictions on the spacing of the webs. A centre-to-centre spacing of 500 mm was selected, with one tendon per cavity. The design of the walls and capping beams is detailed, and the construction sequence and monitoring program are described briefly. Key words: post-tensioning, masonry, retaining walls, design, FRP tendons, corrosion free
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".