MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Strength evaluation of early-age full-scale unreinforced masonry walls against out-of-plane loading using experimental and numerical studies

2024· article· en· W4405468769 on OpenAlexafffund
Ali Abasi, Bennett Banting, Ayan Sadhu

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Structures · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Masonry Design CentreCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsUnreinforced masonry buildingStructural engineeringMasonryFull scaleMaterials scienceScale (ratio)Geotechnical engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a lack of understanding of the early-age (within the first seven days) strength properties of masonry. As a result, the design of temporary wind bracing of masonry during construction tends to error on the side of excess conservatism and consequently ends up being more costly and complex than what may otherwise be required. The consequences of failure of these bracing systems are catastrophic, yet there is a lack of research and definitive design guidance available for engineers who may seek to better optimize their design. This paper investigates the strength and behavior of early-age full-scale masonry walls subjected to out-of-plane loading through comprehensive experimental and numerical studies, aiming to fill the gaps in current masonry design codes and facilitate robust, accurate and cost-effective wind bracing of masonry during construction. Recognizing the vulnerability of early-age masonry to wind-induced out-of-plane forces, an innovative test setup was developed to evaluate cantilever and simply-supported masonry walls. A total of 60 full-scale walls were tested at various stages of curing prior to full 28-day strength. A novel setup, validated by different types of recorded data and digital image correlation analysis, was designed to capture the walls' behavior. Key findings indicate that the early-age walls showed minimal tensile strength until 24 hours and achieved ∼50 % and ∼73 % of their full strength within the first 24 and 72 hours, respectively. The relationships between tensile strength and curing time were found to be logarithmic. Regression models were developed for predictive purposes. Also, there is no meaningful difference between the tensile strength of simply supported walls and cantilever walls. The tensile strength of early-age walls was found to be significantly higher than that of axial tensile strength of masonry prisms and mortar cubes, especially during early ages when primary hydration had not fully occurred. Masonry that has reached its 28-day strength showed good agreement with specified flexural tensile strength in design codes, confirming the reliability of the test setup and the experimental results. A finite element model was employed to simulate the walls, showing good agreement with experimental results. The proposed predictive regression model also estimated properties for curing times not covered experimentally, providing insights for designing temporary bracing systems for early-age masonry, and highlighting the potential for improved safety and efficiency in construction practices. • This paper evaluates the early-age strength of full-scale masonry walls by conducting extensive numerical and experimental studies. • Early-age masonry walls reach ∼50 % of lateral strength at 24 hrs and ∼73 % at 72 hrs, with a logarithmic increase. • There is no significant difference in flexural tensile strength between early-age cantilever and simply supported walls. • The finite element model accurately predicts lateral strength and failure modes of early-age walls. • Findings suggest potential revisions to CSA-S304 for shear resistance and flexural tensile strength of cantilever walls. • Flexural tensile strength of masonry walls exceeds axial masonry assemblage tensile strength by 3.6 times and mortar cube tensile strength by 1.46 times, more notably at t < 24.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering StructuresSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207