MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An experimental study of eccentrically loaded slender concrete masonry walls at full- and half-scale

2025· article· en· W4414159068 on OpenAlexafffund
George Iskander, Ali Ahmed, Nigel G. Shrive

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Structures · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Masonry Design Centre
KeywordsMasonryMortarJoint (building)Compression (physics)EccentricYield (engineering)BucklingTest data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Provisions in international design standards for the axial capacity of slender concrete masonry wall (CMW) behaviour have been noted to be inaccurate. These inaccuracies may be conservative in some cases and unconservative in others. A limitation to the improvement of these provisions is the lack of CMW experimental data. Logistical issues associated with the size of full-scale specimens limits the experimental data available in the literature. Scaled specimens can reduce logistical constraints, but the behaviour of CMWs at scale is not well understood. To improve the understanding of scaled CMWs in the literature, 12 CMWs (6 full-scale, 6 half-scale) were built and tested in eccentric axial compression inducing symmetric single curvature, with e = t /3 for all specimens. Walls were tested 1 year after construction. Failure loads and lateral load-deflection profiles are provided for all specimens. The experimental data yield several key observations: increased variation in f’ m at half-scale (up to 9.9 %), and at 1 year compared to 28 days (up to 9.3 %); increased variability (3.2 %) in mortar joint thickness at half-scale; and similar behaviour at scale for all types of tested walls when accounting for expected variation in f’ m . A simplified test rig, eliminating the bottom roller typically used in slender CMW testing, was used in the test. The simplified test rig was found to induce no membrane action in all walls with h / t = 20 and is recommended for slender CMW testing due to its increased constructability. • 12 concrete masonry walls tested in eccentric axial compression at full, half scale. • Walls tested at 1 year of age; failure loads, load-deflection data provided. • Increased COV in grout, prism strengths noted at half scale and 1 year • No scale effects at half scale for masonry walls in eccentric axial compression. • Simplified test rig recommended for walls with h/t ≥ 20.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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