The effect of the amount, distribution, and end anchorage conditions of bond beam reinforcement on the behaviour of concrete masonry shear walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The behaviour of squat shape partially grouted concrete masonry shear walls with fixed-end boundary conditions subjected to constant average axial stress and cyclic lateral loading was investigated. Two replicas were tested of each combination of horizontal reinforcement ratio (0.12%, 0.06%, and 0.03%) and four end anchorage conditions (straight, 90°, 180°, and shear studs). The behaviour of the walls was compared in terms of strength, ductility, stiffness, and dissipated energy. While the effect of horizontal bar size was greater than that of end anchorage, neither improved end anchorage nor smaller bar size increased yielding at critical locations on the rebars. The highest course of the wall should be reinforced and grouted, as that improves performance of the walls. In addition, the amount of horizontal reinforcement did not significantly affect the strength of the shear walls, therefore changes to the shear design equations in the Canadian Standard are recommended.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".