Testing and finite element modelling of concrete block masonry walls under axial and out-of-plane loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current Canadian masonry design standard, CSA S304-14 (2014), appears to underestimate the capacity of loadbearing masonry walls for some loading combinations and wall sizes. This is compounded by the fact that most testing has been completed on walls with pinned base supports, a condition that is not representative of practice. To understand the structural response of concrete block walls under eccentric axial and combined axial and out-of-plane loads better, walls with height to thickness ratio of 12.6 were tested. The displacement profiles under pinned-fixed and pinned-pinned boundary conditions were obtained for both load combinations and were used with the constituent material properties to calibrate finite element models. Models were developed using micro-modelling approaches, modelling units, mortar and grout as merged parts, or individually with friction contact interfaces, having rebar embedded in the grouted cells. The contact modelling approach showed broad agreement with the test results. Both the test results and the modelling showed a clear reduction in out-of-plane displacements, and change in the displaced profile, when a pinned connection was not forced at the wall base.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".