MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413010252 · doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2025.109691

Stress-strain behavior of masonry boundary element prisms under axial compression

2025· article· en· W4413010252 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohamed Y. Zorainy, Belal AbdelRahman, Ahmed Ashour, Ala’ Taleb Obaidat, Khaled Galal

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Masonry Design Centre
KeywordsMasonryMaterials scienceStructural engineeringCompression (physics)Stress–strain curveStrain (injury)Stress (linguistics)Element (criminal law)Composite materialDeformation (meteorology)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reinforced masonry shear walls (RMSWs) with masonry boundary elements (MBEs) are rectangular walls with integrated MBEs at wall extremities. The compressive stress-strain behavior of boundary element (BE) prisms built using C-shaped blocks (C-MBEPs) varies from that of regular stretcher prisms due to the continuity of the grout core (i.e., the absence of the block’s webs) and the higher grout-to-shell area ratio. However, few studies have investigated the stress-strain behavior of MBEs built from C-shaped blocks. This study evaluated the complete compressive stress-strain behavior of half-scale fully grouted C-MBEPs and their constituents (i.e., masonry shells and grout cores). In total, eight fully grouted masonry prisms, six ungrouted masonry shells, and 18 grout cores were tested under concentric compression loading. The test matrix is composed of two aspect ratios, two and five, and normal and high grout strengths. In addition, the effects of grout core curing (air- and wet-cured) were examined. The results for the grouted prisms were compared to four predictive equations from the literature to evaluate their ability to predict the peak strength of grouted C-MBEPs. The results showed that curing grout (i.e., either in water or air) has a negligible effect (∼ ±5 %) on its stress-strain behavior. The effect of the aspect ratio on the grout strength was lower than the 15 % expected from the correction factors suggested by CSA S304–14. In addition, the strength prediction equations for masonry prisms in the literature were found to misestimate the strength of C-MBEPs with an average overestimation of ∼70 % and underestimation of ∼40 % for prisms with an average grout strength of 30 MPa. Based on the experimental results, an equation was proposed to predict the compressive strength of MBE prisms, which was subsequently found to agree well with experimental data from the literature. This study helps elucidate the importance of masonry material constituents, geometry, and curing effects on the strength of masonry prisms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructuresSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207