Canada/US (CANUS) Comparison of Out-of-Plane Reinforced Masonry Wall Design Provisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a larger project jointly sponsored by the National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) Foundation, Canadian Concrete Masonry Producers Association (CCMPA), Canada Masonry Design Centre (CMDC) and Canadian Standards Association (CSA), a team of engineers and researchers from U.S. and Canada worked together to examine the key differences and similarities between the design provisions for reinforced masonry walls subject to out-of-plane (OOP) and axial loads. The scope was limited to the strength design provisions of TMS 402-16 and the limit state design provisions of CSA S304-14 masonry design standards. Several parametric studies were conducted to quantify the comparisons, as well as to identify possible limitations within each code. These studies explored factors that directly impact the calculation of combined flexural and axial capacity, wall stiffness, second-order moments, and shear capacity of the masonry walls subjected to OOP loading. Parameters considered include the compressive strength of the masonry assembly, wall geometry, as well as the size, strength and spacing of the steel reinforcement. In general, it was found that the Canadian provisions are more conservative than those in the U.S. The paper also provides a list of areas of further research or code revisions that should be considered in the future. It is the team’s goal to propose improvements to both codes as a result of this work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".