Canada/US (CANUS) Comparison of Reinforced Masonry Shear Wall and Seismic Design Provisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a larger project titled, CANUS: Harmonization of Canadian and American Masonry Structures Design Standards Project, in this paper, the design provisions in TMS 402-16 and CSA S304-14 are compared for reinforced concrete masonry shear walls subject to in-plane forces. The scope of the work covers inplane bending and axial force interactions, shear capacity calculations, and seismic provisions for fully grouted reinforced concrete masonry shear walls. Seven parametric studies and two case studies are utilized to quantify the impact of some of the differences. The parametric studies include exploration of the effects of the wall aspect ratio, compressive strength of masonry, maximum reinforcement limitations and ductility requirements, material or capacity reduction factors, maximum compressive strain, and the artificial moment arm reduction considerations, as well as seismic wall categories and prescriptive seismic detailing requirements. The authors find that in most cases, the Canadian approach is more conservative than the U.S. The main contributor to this discrepancy is a large difference in the typical masonry compressive strength (f’m) values used in Canada and the U.S. By contrast, the maximum reinforcement ratio combined with a lower maximum strain in U.S. design can limit the height of reinforced masonry walls, especially in high seismic areas. The main product of this project is a list of potential future research studies for the resolution of some of the issues highlighted in this paper that can help improve and harmonize both countries’ masonry design provisions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".