Out-of-Plane Behavior of Reinforced Stack Pattern Tall Masonry Walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Load-bearing masonry is widely used in North America, offering architects various unit patterns, including running bond and stack bond, for both architectural and load-bearing purposes. However, stack pattern masonry in load-bearing walls faces additional design restrictions compared to running bonds. Many prefer stack patterns for their aesthetics but are often unaware of the structural limitations. These constraints originate from research on unreinforced or ungrouted stack pattern walls, with the misconception arising when horizontal reinforcement or continuous grouting is used. Thus, stack pattern walls may end up, after engineering design, being significantly weaker in flexure than running bond pattern walls. Hence, the primary objective of this study is to investigate the structural behavior of stack pattern and running bond pattern tall masonry walls under constant axial and varying out-of-plane loading. Three running bond patterns and three stack pattern reinforced concrete block masonry walls, each 4.0 m tall ×2.4 m long ×0.19 m thick, were tested under combined out-of-plane bending and axial loading. The test data showed that the failure modes of stack pattern and running bond pattern walls are similar. This study found that the out-of-plane flexural capacity of the stack pattern wall is 8% to 11% lower than the counterpart running bond wall. However, the postcracking behavior of the stack pattern and counterpart running bond walls were found to be similar. Findings from this research suggest that changes to both Canadian Standards Association (CSA) S304 and TMS 402/602 provisions regarding stack pattern masonry are warranted.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".