Bibliographic record
Abstract
An analytical technique was developed and encoded for computer application to study the behaviour of concrete masonry load-bearing walls under various loading conditions. Both geometrical and material nonlinearities to account for the moment magnification effect and the degradation of material stiffness are included in the development. Effects of vertical reinforcing steel, masonry tensile cracking, and compressive crushing are included directly in the momentcurvature relationship, which is used in the determination of element stiffnesses at successive load increments. A parametric study was conducted following verification of the analytical model by comparing results with experimental test data. Effective flexural rigidity (EIeff) values at failure were obtained analytically and compared with values suggested in the Canadian masonry code CSA-S304.1-M94. It was concluded that CSA-S304.1-M94 tends to underestimate EIeff values for reinforced walls and thus leads to a conservative design over a range of parameters. Based on approximately 500 computer model tests, a lower bound bilinear limit for the effective rigidity of reinforced masonry walls was established. This limit is believed to provide an accurate and realistic estimate of EIeff.Key words: walls, load bearing, masonry, analytical, nonlinear, rigidity, stressstrain, momentcurvature.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".