Influence of material properties and reinforcement on the compressive and shear strengths of concrete masonry: An experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shear strength of reinforced masonry (RM) walls is influenced by the properties of blocks, mortar, grout, and reinforcement. Despite extensive research on the impact of these elements on masonry compressive strength , there is, to the knowledge of the authors, a notable gap in studies examining their effects on shear strength. This study experimentally investigates the influence of mortar and grout strengths , as well as vertical and horizontal reinforcement, on the compressive and shear stress-strain responses of concrete masonry prisms and assemblages. A total of 40 masonry prisms and 34 masonry assemblages were tested under concentric axial compression and diagonal tension loads, respectively. The behavior of prisms and assemblages was analyzed in terms of compressive and shear strengths, strain at peak stress, modulus of elasticity and rigidity , ultimate ductility index , and modulus of toughness. Additionally, the experimental results were compared with available equations in the literature and North American standards (i.e., CSA S304–14&24 and TMS 402/602–22) for predicting the compressive and shear masonry strengths. The findings reveal that increasing the mortar or grout strengths significantly enhance masonry shear strength but has a less pronounced effect on compressive strength . The presence of vertical or horizontal reinforcement alone or in combination contributes positively to masonry shear strength. For compression prisms, both superposition of masonry shell and grout core strengths and most existing literature equations tend to overestimate masonry compressive strength . The available literature equations for predicting masonry shear strength showed good agreement with the experimental results of this study. CSA S304–14&24 equations overestimate masonry compressive strength but underestimate shear strength, whereas TMS 402/602–22 underestimates both. This study highlights the need for better prediction methods for both compressive and shear strengths of concrete masonry in North American design standards.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".