Shear load capacity in masonry: international standards comparative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several structural models aim to predict the behavior of masonry walls. Those are included in technical standards strive to ensure the anticipation of the structural capacity, thereby assuring its safety. Different regions of the world encompass diverse parameters for predicting the lateral capacity of masonry members. This study sought to compare the Brazilian, Canadian, American, Australian, and European masonry standards regarding the shear and flexural capacity specification of walls. Equations derived from the standards were contrasted against finite element modeling results and to reliable formulation from the literature for predicting wall shear behavior. Additionally, an actualization is proposed to the Brazilian standard. The results revealed that while flexural capacity specifications result in comparable values across all standards, the Brazilian standard exhibited the least conservatism in the shear capacity, followed by the Australian, American, Canadian, and European standards. The diagonal shear was the primary mode of panel failure of the walls from the FE (Finite Element) modeling. The suggested adjustments to the Brazilian code, including considering the net area and correction of the initial shear strength (fvk0), result values close to the modeling results.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".