MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412754675 · doi:10.11159/iccste25.237

Load-Carrying Capacity of Interlocking Mortarless Masonry Walls

2025· article· en· W4412754675 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmed H. Alwathaf, Waleed Abdulmalik Thanoon, Mohd Saleh Jaafar

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterlockingMasonryStructural engineeringComputer scienceCarrying capacityGeologyGeotechnical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interlocking mortarless masonry is an innovative and sustainable construction system that offers numerous advantages, including reduced material usage, faster construction, and minimized environmental impact.However, the absence of standardized design codes and guidelines poses a significant challenge to its widespread adoption, particularly in structural applications.This study presents an analytical investigation of load-bearing interlocking mortarless masonry using a finite element (FE) program designed for analysis of interlocking mortarless masonry to evaluate its structural behaviour.A parametric study was conducted to examine the influence of slenderness and eccentricity on the system's load-carrying capacity.Based on the numerical results, a predictive equation was proposed to estimate the load capacity under varying conditions.The comparison between the FE analysis and the proposed equation demonstrated good agreement, with deviations ranging within an acceptable range (from -7% to 11.5%), particularly at lower slenderness values (H/t=8).The findings of this study contribute to the development of standardized design guidelines for interlocking masonry, facilitating its broader adoption as a sustainable construction system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation EngineeringSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207