A Look to the Past: Reevaluation of the Performance of Tall Slender Concrete Masonry Walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Slender masonry walls (SMWs) with a slenderness ratio (kh/t) over 30 have stringent design requirements in North American codes (TMS 402/602-16; CSA S304-14). As a result, in some design scenarios masonry struggles to be a competitive option compared to other systems. The limits and requirements for tall walls are largely based on a comprehensive investigation conducted by the American Concrete Institute and the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California 41 years ago. Since then, understanding of these slender elements has advanced, and the tools for a more refined analysis have become easily available to practicing engineers. Furthermore, recent studies highlight the need to reevaluate the performance of these walls and the requirements in the design standards. In this study, a full-scale SMW built using concrete masonry units subjected to eccentric axial and cyclic out-of-plane loads was tested, the first of a series of tests conducted at the University of Alberta to reevaluate the strength and behavior of tall concrete masonry walls; the test aimed to generate a rational design procedure for modern SMWs.
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) | 0.010 | 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".