Evaluation of Design Provisions for In-Plane Shear in Masonry Walls
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigated current and proposed design procedures for in-plane shear in masonry walls. Procedures considered include both strength design and allowable stress design provisions in the 2008 MSJC Building Code Requirements and Specifications for Masonry Structures, the New Zealand masonry design standard NZS 4230:2004, the Canadian masonry design standard CSA S304.1-04, provisions in the 1997 Uniform Building Code, and proposed design equations developed by Shing et al. in 1990 and by Anderson and Priestley in 1992. Predicted shear strengths from the various procedures were compared with results from a wide range of tests of masonry walls failing in in-plane shear. The test data encompassed both concrete masonry walls and clay masonry walls, all of which were fully grouted. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the overall effectiveness of each set of provisions or proposed equation. Parametric studies were also performed to evaluate the ability of the provisions and equations to account for the effects of specific parameters. The current MSJC strength design provisions were found to provide the best shear predictions over a wide range of wall parameters. Based on the results of this study, recommendations are made to improve the current MSJC strength design and allowable stress design provisions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it