Design rules for hollow concrete masonry walls subjected to concentrated loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design rules are proposed for assessing the bearing strengths of hollow concrete masonry walls subjected to in-plane concentrated loads. These are derived from numerical and experimental studies of this problem. Two possible zones of failure are considered: the solidgrouted masonry directly beneath the concentrated loads, and the hollow masonry beneath the grouted portion. The important factors influencing the bearing strength are taken into account: loading eccentricity across the wall width, effective loading area, loading plate length, and loading location along the wall. An angle of 22° or slope (vertical to horizontal) of 2.5:1 is chosen for a safe estimate of the dispersion of concentrated load through the solidgrouted masonry. For partial grouting patterns, at least two courses downward should be grouted to a length compatible with the loading plate. When compared with the available numerical and experimental results, conservative estimates of ultimate strength are obtained in all cases.Key words: design rules, hollow concrete masonry wall, in-plane concentrated load, out-of-plane eccentricities, loading plate length, loading locations, dispersion angle.
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".