Composite action in masonry walls under vertical in-plane loading: experimental results compared with predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of five experimental test series on masonry walls supported by reinforced concrete beams or slabs are reported and compared to theoretical predictions of the load bearing capacity. The experiments were performed on deep masonry beams built with respectively calcium silicate and clay brick. Investigated parameters were: position of the supports, concrete beam-masonry interface, concrete beam stiffness, type of loading, and height of masonry wall and concrete beam. Based on literature, the method proposed by Davies and Ahmed as well as the method according to Eurocode 6 were used to estimate the load bearing capacity of the tested masonry walls supported by concrete beams. The method of Davies and Ahmed allows for the determination of the stresses and stress resultants in the masonry. The analysis shows that near the support an inclined compressive force acts at the bed joint, which means that a shear-compression stress state exists in the bed joint. Strength evaluation has been carried out using the Mann-Müller criterion that is adopted in Eurocode 6. Based on the test results, it may be concluded that both methods yield conservative values of the load bearing capacity, as could be expected. Before cracking a linear elastic behavior was observed, while after cracking a strut-and-tie model may be applied. To develop more accurate design models, it is recommended to investigate the post-cracking behavior in more detail.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".