Testing Joints between Walls Made of AAC Masonry Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Joints between walls are very important for structural analysis of each masonry building at the global and local level. This issue has often been neglected in the case of traditional joints and relatively squat walls. At present, the issue of wall joints is becoming particularly important due to the continuous drive for simplifying structures, introducing new technologies and materials. Eurocode 6 and other standards (American, Canadian, Chinese, and Japanese) recommend inspecting joints between walls, but no detailed procedures have been specified. This paper presents our own tests on joints between walls made of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) masonry units. Tests included reference models composed of two wall panels joined perpendicularly with a standard masonry bond (six models), with classic steel and modified connectors (twelve models). The shape and size of test models and the structure of a test stand were determined on the basis of the analysis of the current knowledge, pilot studies and numerical FEM (Finite Element Method) - based analyses. The analyses referred to the morphology and failure mechanism of models. Load-displacement relationships for different types of joints were compared and obtained results were related to results for reference models. The mechanisms of cracking and failure was found to vary, and clear differences in the behaviour and load capacity of each type of joint were observed. The individual working phases of joints were determined and defined, and an empirical approach was proposed for the determination of forces and displacement of wall joints.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".