Numerical study of the behaviour of hollow unreinforced concrete masonry subject to eccentric axial load and examination of North American design standard provisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inaccuracies and inconsistencies in international design standard predictions of eccentrically loaded slender concrete masonry wall (SCMW) behaviour have long been noted. Scarce experimental data has limited the development of accurate provisions. As SCMW experimental work is complex, a numerical model presents value as a rational guide for future experiments and to compare against current SCMW design provisions. In this study, a three-dimensional detailed micro-model is developed for HSCMWs. The model is validated against recent HSCMW experimental strength and stiffness data. Different uniaxial compression stress-strain curves and initial imperfections are considered. Assumed compressive stress-strain behaviour is found to especially influence numerical HSCMW flexural stiffness; initial imperfections are found to reduce wall axial capacity up to 15 % among considered cases. A preliminary comparison of CSA S304–24 and TMS 402/602–22 HSCMW provisions against each other and the numerical model is then presented. Differences in maximum axial compressive stress ( f c ) between both standards are found to particularly drive differences in predicted strength. By comparing both standards against the numerical results, it is suggested both standards permit linear elastic analysis of cross-sectional stresses without penalty, and that the use of a higher f c in CSA S304–24 be considered. • A 3D detailed micro-model is developed for hollow concrete masonry walls. • Chosen uniaxial stress-strain curve particularly affects numerical flexural stiffness. • Effect of load eccentricity, end fixity, effective height, imperfection presented. • Normalized standard strength values differ from FE by up to 0.71 (CSA), 0.46 (TMS). • Changes to peak axial stress, linear elastic analysis clauses advised for CSA S304.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".