Experimental study of reinforced masonry walls subjected to combined axial load and out-of-plane bendingThis article is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue on Masonry.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twelve reinforced masonry wall specimens with nominal dimensions of 2400 mm × 800 mm × 150 mm were tested under eccentric compressive loading with varying eccentricity to thickness ratios, e/t, and end eccentricity ratios, e1/e2. Pinned-pinned support conditions resulted in a slenderness ratio of 17.1 for all specimens. Test results showed that the variation of ultimate load, Pu, and effective modulus of rigidity values, EIeff, at failure depended on the type of failure mode, which was influenced by e/t and e1/e2ratios and their interaction. Comparing ultimate loads obtained by test against those calculated using the EIeffvalues from the Canadian standard CSA S304.1-04 and against the ones calculated using the EIeffvalues proposed herein indicates that, while the moment magnifier method used in the current Canadian design standard to account for secondary effects is effective, the standard underestimates EIeffvalues, especially in regions where compression-controlled failure tends to predominate and, thus, leads to a conservative design. However, the use of proposed EIeffvalues in combination with the moment magnifier method provides estimations of ultimate loads in reasonably good agreement with test results.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".