Assessment of Masonry-Infilled Steel Frames Using Existing Experimental Tests Database in Comparison to Standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the influence of infill masonry on horizontal load structure behavior is well-documented, current standards and regulations have yet to fully incorporate or explicitly define the load-bearing capacity of this complex system. Canadian and American standards present more comprehensive and specific methodologies for calculating the load-bearing capacity of infill masonry and frame systems. In contrast, European standards tend to focus on offering general guidelines for the design of these systems without delving into the detailed calculation procedures. However, extensive data and experimental studies on this topic are available in the literature. The primary aim of this paper was to compile a database of experiments involving frames with different types of infill masonry. Subsequently, the empirical results obtained through the application of analytical expressions from various standards are compared to the experimental data included in the compiled database. The obtained load-bearing values were compared to different standards and work conducted by various researchers found in the literature in order to assess their reliability. Based on the obtained results, important conclusions were drawn, specifically to the most accurate equivalent diagonal model used and the analytical expressions to be used in the assessment of the masonry-infilled steel frame behavior. The equivalent diagonal model, utilized in all analytical expressions, can provide highly accurate estimations of load-bearing capacities that closely align with the experimental results. Regardless of the type of infill element, the analytical expressions consistently overestimated the load-bearing capacity. In the presence of longitudinal force, analytical expressions tend to be conservative, providing significantly lower load-bearing values compared with experimental results, which ensures a safety margin. The database can be utilized to develop numerical models, which can subsequently serve as the foundation for probabilistic methods used in conducting reliability assessments.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".