Theoretical and experimental study of slender structural masonry walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of the factors to be taken into account in the design of compression loaded elements is their slenderness. Nowadays, in Brazil, the industry still uses the concept of simplified slenderness ratio - in which the buckling length is determined by an effective height (hef) and the radius of gyration is replaced by a parameter called effective thickness (tef) - when calculating the resistance reduction factor. Other masonry codes, such as the North American, European and Australian, also use the resistance reduction factor in their wall compression load capacity formulation. Yet, the Canadian code indicates the need for a more accurate and realistic analysis of slender walls, considering the balance in the deformed configuration of the wall (P-Delta analysis). This paper reports the findings of an experimental program that tested 18 ceramic and concrete block walls with high slenderness ratios, obtained with thin block dimensions. The predictions of load capacity for the case of hollow concrete blocks were close to the test results. In the case of the ceramic blocks, which had a complex, double-face shell geometry, only the Canadian code approach produced the test results with some degree of certainty and proximity. Slenderer walls and complex geometry blocks require more refined calculation procedures. P-Delta analysis and the verification of the section with brittle-tensile materials solutions may apply.
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) | 0.931 | 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".