Behavior of reinforcing bar connections of hollow-core slabs to masonry walls under in-plane forces
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrity ties are necessary in hollow-core slab floors as connections to prevent floor displacements under lateral loads and maintain the overall structural integrity of buildings. In Eastern Canada, the integrity tie for hollow-core slabs on masonry walls usually consists of a 10M (no. 3), L-shaped steel bar that is hammered into the supporting wall and grouted to the slabs. However, current North American design codes do not offer sufficient provisions to determine the capacity or predict the mode of failure of these ties and connections. This paper introduces the results of testing nine full-scale reinforcing bar connection assemblies under monotonic in-plane forces (compression, tension, and shear) until failure. Test parameters in this study included direction and orientation of the in-plane loading, the bearing type of the hollow-core slabs, and the use of adhesive. Test results showed that connections with dry-fit bars tested under compression failed by bar yielding followed by masonry beam crushing. In addition, the mode of failure under tension forces was governed by the loss of bearing of the slabs due to bar pullout and cover spalling. Under shear forces, the connection failed by bar yielding. Finally, the connections with adhesive had a similar mode of failure compared to their counterparts with dry-fit bars, but these did not show bar pullout from the masonry beam, therefore demonstrating higher stiffness.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it