Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research described in this thesis focuses on improving our understanding of the behaviour of reinforced concrete masonry subjected to shear. All shear design methods in current masonry building codes are empirically based, and have been shown to produce widely varying predictions of shear strengths of masonry walls, beams and columns. Furthermore, the research community acknowledges that there is little to no consensus on the exact mechanisms of shear transfer in masonry elements, thereby slowing the replacement of empirical design expressions with more rational approaches. Given that shear failures can be brittle and sudden, with little to no warning of impending failure; experimental research focusing on these two issues is of primary importance. An extensive experimental program consisting load-testing fifteen large-scale reinforced masonry beams is presented in this thesis. The results definitively show that principles that govern the shear design of reinforced concrete beams in Canada can be applied to reinforced masonry beams. Various phenomena that have been observed in reinforced concrete subjected to shear were also observed in these tests, includes “the size effect” and “the strain effect”. It is shown that design codes that do not account for these effects exhibit higher variability and in the case of size effect, may produce unsafe designs. Detailed instrumentation of the test specimens showed that aggregate interlock is the major mechanism of shear transfer in masonry beams, and as such this mechanism can explain much of the observed experimental behaviour. The size effect, wherein the failure shear stress decreases as the effective depth increases, can be explained by the reduced aggregate interlock capacity. Likewise, the strain effect, wherein the failure shear stress decrease as longitudinal strains increase, can be explained based on reduced aggregate interlock. It is also found that stirrups and longitudinal reinforcement distributed over the height of the beam have highly beneficial effects on shear behaviour of reinforced masonry. The test results of this research were used to justify the use of the CSA A23.3 as a base to revise the shear provisions in of CSA S304-2014 masonry code.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".