Reliability Analysis of Masonry Members under Compression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A structural reliability analysis was performed on concrete masonry under concentric axial compression to examine the reliability levels for masonry buildings designed to the current Canadian masonry standard CSA S304.1-04 (2004). The first order second moment method was used to carry out the analysis. Prism compressive strength for hollow and grouted concrete masonry was used as the model. Over 300 specified masonry compressive strength values were computed using test results available from North American investigations, mostly Canadian. The material and geometry statistical data needed were obtained from several Canadian concrete masonry producers. Based on the findings of this investigation, it is recommended that unreinforced masonry be assigned a material resistance factor (φm) different from reinforced masonry. For masonry members under compression, it is proposed that the current φm be increased from 0.6 to 0.65 for reinforced masonry and decreased from 0.6 to 0.5 for unreinforced masonry. The proposed factors correspond to reliability indices of 3.5 and 3.8 for reinforced and unreinforced masonry, respectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".