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 was often neglected in case of traditional joints and relatively squat walls. Nowadays the issue of wall joints is becoming particularly important due to the continuous strive for simplifying structures, introducing new technologies and materials. Eurocode 6 and other standards (USA, Canadian, Chinese, and Japanese) recommend inspecting joints between walls, but no detail 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 masonry bond (6 models), traditional steel and modified connectors (12 models). A shape and size of test models and structure of a test stand were determined on the basis of the analysis of the current knowledge, pilot studies and numerical analyses of FEM. The analysis referred to the morphology and failure mechanism of models. Load-displacement relationships for different types of joints were compared and obtained results were referred to results for reference models. A mechanism of cracking and failure was found to vary, and clear differences in behaviour and load capacity of each type of joints were observed. Individual working phases of joints were determined and defined, and the empirical approach was suggested to determine 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".