https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/cepa.

830

DOI: 10.1002/cepa.830

F U L L PA P E R

Analysis of AAC precast lintels embedded in walls different

construction

Łukasz Drobiec Radosław Jasiński Wojciech Mazur

Department of Building Structures, Silesian

University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland
Correspondence
Mgr inż. Wojciech Mazur, Department of Build-
ing Structures, Silesian University of Technology,
5 Akademicka Street, 44–100 Gliwice, Poland.
Email: wojciech.mazur@polsl.pl
Abstract
The paper presents experimental results of lintels embedded in walls different construction. Walls
and lintels were made of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC). Lintels act in different statical con-
ditions. Walls were erected in natural scale as a standard masonry wall, bounded walls, and with
additional reinforced concrete cores along vertical edges of window openings. Cracks propagation
and destruction of lintels were analyzed. The tests were monitored by Digital Image Correlation
system Aramis, and results were analyzed by GOM Correlate software. The results were com-
pared with the results of smaller models, which represent the areas of window opening, and also
with the result of lintels tested as simply supported beam according to the standard method.

KEYWORDS
AAC, Aramis, compression strength, cracks, lintel

1 INTRODUCTION
The reinforced concrete prefabricated elements used in construc-
tion and made directly on the construction site are created on the
basis of engineering calculations. Prefabricated lintels must meet the
requirements of the standard [1] and in addition to engineering calcu-
lations, they undergo strength tests in accordance with the require-
ments of the standard [2]. Self-supporting lintels are examined in a
free-supported beam scheme, whereas composite lintels are examined
with an additional superstructure of several layers of masonry com-
ponents. In fact, the static scheme adopted in the studies and in the
project does not necessarily reflect the actual work of the lintel after
being built into the wall. This may be affected by the unexpected coop-
eration of the lintel with the wall, partial restraint on the support, and
material parameters deviating from the assumptions.
In the case of reinforced prefabricated lintels made of autoclaved
aerated concrete (AAC), there is a significant difference in the required
minimum length of the masonry support to the precast concrete prod-
ucts. According to the standard [3], the minimum length of the lin-
tel support on the masonry resulting from the condition of safe load
transfer is 90 mm. However, the standard [2] increases this length
to 100 mm due to the correct anchoring of the reinforcement. Due
to the lower compressive strength and the negligible load-bearing
capacity anchorage of the reinforcement through adhesion in AAC ele-
ments, manufacturers require that the length of the support on the
masonry is at least 200 mm. The article presents the results of tests of
prefabricated lintels made of AAC, the main purpose of which was to
analyze the cracking and failure mechanism development of lintels in
various static arrangements: as a beam acting with the masonry and
the beam partially restrained at the support (in the core), a simply sup-
ported beam. Some of the research models were monitored using the
Aramis system for noncontact measurement of the displacement.
2 EXPERIMENTAL TESTS
2.1 Test models and test procedure
Research was carried out on prefabricated, reinforced lintels made of
aerated concrete loaded in various static schemes. Full-size models of
walls were made with openings covered with lintels, differentiating
their construction by means of restraining with reinforced concrete
cores that would affect lintel work. The tests of wall fragments map-
ping the zone above the window opening were also made. The lintels
were also examined in four-point bending scheme.
2.1.1 Walls
The walls were made as a nonconfined, confined along their perimeter,
and confined along their perimeter and at the window opening. There
was one layer of masonry above the lintel in all walls. The tests were
performed for six walls. The basic series marked as MNSO consisted
of two models of nonconfined walls (Figure 1a). Other two basic series
included two models: first confined along their perimeter, marked as


c 2018 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

ce papers. 2018;2:367–376. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cepa 367

368 DROBIEC ET AL .

F I G U R E 1 A view of test models from the series (a) MNSO, (b) MSO, and (c) M2SO
Source: Author.

MSO (Figure 1b), and second with additional vertical reinforced con- 2.1.2 Models series MIII-N
crete cores at vertical edges of a window opening that were marked
In addition to full-size wall research, experimental studies of smaller
as M2SO (Figure 1c). The model walls were 4.43 m long. Their height
models mapping the zone over the window opening were also carried
with the reinforced concrete rim was 2.49 m. Window openings in each
out. Four models were made with one course of the masonry units
model were 1.55 m wide and 0.97 m high.
above the lintel with the height of a full masonry unit. The width of
Masonry walls were made of aerated concrete blocks, mortar, and
the window opening was 1500 mm. The lintels were supported on
lintels, which were presented in [2–4]. All elements were tested 28
two courses of wall elements laid on a reinforced concrete beam. The
days from finishing works. In the models of M2SO series, ends of pre-
length of the model was 2680 mm and the height to the lower surface
fabricated lintels were crushed, and longitudinal reinforcement of lin-
of the rim was 960 mm. The models complemented the NIII-N series
tels was anchored in vertical reinforced concrete cores. While testing
research presented in [5]. The view of the research model and a spe-
the lintels, some parts of walls around an opening window were also
cially designed test stand is shown in Figure 4. On the one side of the
tested. This paper only presents the results for lintels.
models, research was carried out using the Aramis system and on the
The models were tested on a test stand (Figure 2), like in the
other side the lintel deflection was measured with standard linear vari-
tests [2]. Only the arrangement of vertical ties and crossbeams over the
able differential transformer (LVDT) sensors. Loads were caused by
lintel was slightly modified. One pair of ties was fixed at the midspan of
a 1000 kN range hydraulic actuator. Through the layout of traverses,
the lintel, and two remaining pairs were fixed at the spacing of 1.5 m,
the load is applied in four points equally spaced on the upper surface
symmetrically in relation to the window opening, each at one side of
of the rim. A reinforced concrete rim with cross-sectional dimensions,
the opening. The ties were loaded by hydraulic piston below rigid RC
b = 180 mm and h = 220 mm (width and height), laid on the masonry
slab (the laboratory ceiling). Crossbeams were loaded by actuator fixed
on the thin mortar layer. Before the vertical load was applied, horizon-
to steel frames that were fixed to the rigid RC slab. A view of models on
tal stresses of a value not exceeding 0.1 MPa were introduced through
the test stand is shown in Figure 3.
the steel tension-bearing system for simulating deformation limits of
At first, the load was applied with hydraulic actuator (each pair of
wall continuity.
ties was loaded with 55 kN), which reflected load of the floor with 6.0 m
span. Then, the load was applied using the actuators fixed to the frames
until the failure of the support zone of lintels in the tested models. The 2.1.3 Lintels
displacements of lintels were recorded during the tests using inductive The lintels presented by Mazur et al. [4], tested in the simply sup-
transducers of displacement. Sensors were placed at both sides of the ported beam scheme in accordance with the recommendations of the
nonconfined walls (the models MNSO-Z1 and MNSO-Z2). In confined standard [1], were destroyed as a result of the loss of load-bearing
walls, the sensors were placed at one side of the model. The other side capacity of the longitudinal reinforcement anchorage. The tested
was used to measure deformations of the window area (the models element marked A4 is a supplement to these tests. In fact, the lintel
MOS-Z1 and M2SO-Z2) or wall areas outside of the window opening rests on the wall over the entire length of the support zone, which
(the models MSO-Z2 and M2SO-Z1) using the Aramis software. must be described by the manufacturer in the case of prefabricated
DROBIEC ET AL . 369

F I G U R E 2 Test stand and loading scheme of models from the following series: (a) MNSO, (b) MSO, and (c) M2SO. Notations: 1, LVDT; 2, steel
tendon fastened to piston jacks; 3, crossbeams; 4, dynamometer; 5, hydraulic actuator; 6, rim and reinforced concrete core; 7, steel frame
Source: Author.

F I G U R E 3 A view of test stand for elements from the following groups: (a) MNSO, (b) MSO, and (c) M2SO
Source: Author.

elements. Therefore, in order to better reflect the behavior of the
lintel in the support zone and improve the anchoring conditions of the
longitudinal reinforcement in the support zone, the lintels tested in
the F and G series are supported on plates covering the entire length
of the backrest. The beams were deposited on the sheets on the thin
mortar layer for thin welds. Two methods of laying the sheets were
considered. In the first case, two sheets were directly under the beam,
supporting it from both sides over the entire backrest zone (G series).
In the next case (series F), the second sheet was retracted to the out-
side so that its edge was in the theoretical support point analogically
370 DROBIEC ET AL .

F I G U R E 4 Model series NIII-N: (a) the view of test model, (b) the view of test stand and loading scheme, and (c) the view of test stand witch
specimen. Notations: 1, induction gauge; 2, prestressing tendons; 3, springs in the slideway; 4, force gauge; 5, spherical bearing; 6, steel sheet; 7,
bearing; 8, hydraulic jack; 9, reinforced concrete core; 10, wooden plates
Source: Author.

F I G U R E 5 The view of test stand and loading scheme of models from the following series: (a) A, (b) F, and (c) G. Notations: 1, hydraulic actuator;
2, fixed bearing; 3, sliding bearing; 4, dynamometer; 5, LVDT; 6, steel sheet
Source: Author.

to the elements of the series A. The case of lintel support in the G additional displacement sensors measuring displacement of the end
series corresponds to the case of lintel placed on the wall and loaded of the longitudinal reinforcement rod were installed at the ends of the
by ribs of multirib ceiling during assembly phase. Due to the cracks beams, indicating the loss of the anchorage bearing capacity. The view
observed in preliminary tests [4] along the longitudinal reinforcement, of test stand and loading scheme of lintels is shown in Figures 5 and 6.
DROBIEC ET AL . 371

F I G U R E 6 View of the test stands for testing lintels of series: (a) A, (b) F, and (c) G
Source: Author.

F I G U R E 7 Crack development in the models series MNSO: (a) first cracks and (b) failure state
Source: Author.

F I G U R E 8 Crack development in the model MSO-Z1: (a) first cracks and (b) failure state
Source: Author.

2.2 The course of the test results
2.2.1 Walls
Deformations and cracks in the lintels were analyzed using the con-
ventional measurement methods as walls by Aramis software, where
images were read and processed. Cracks in the nonconfined walls (the
models MNSO) appeared at the load of 80 kN and a deflection at
midspan of the lintel was equal to 0.8 mm. First, cracks were observed
in the support zone and developed toward the upper edge of the lin-
tel (Figure 7a). An increasing load caused diagonal cracks near the
lintel support. Subsequent cracks developed over the support. At the
moment of maximum load equal 189 kN (model MNSO-1) and 196 kN
(model MNSO-2) corresponding deflection was equal 9.5 mm in model
MNSO-1 and 7.6 mm in model MNSO-2 (Figure 7b).
In the wall confined along its perimeter (the model MSO-Z1), cracks
induced by bending perpendicular to the longitudinal axis appeared
in the central part of the lintel at the load of 50 kN and the deflection
of 0.25 mm. An increase of loading caused cracks in the masonry
units located between the lintel and the rim. Simultaneously, cracks
in bed joints located between the middle part of top edge of lintel and
masonry units were observed. These horizontal cracks propagated
toward the lintel's ends. In further load, a diagonal crack appeared in
the lintel (Figure 8a), began at the top edge of the lintel and followed
toward to edge of the support. Next increase in the load caused
development of a similar and symmetrical crack pattern of the lintel
and surrounding area of window opening.
An increase in loads caused greater length and width of the crack
and the formation of subsequent diagonal cracks (second-order cracks)
at the support, and in the masonry units below the support and over
the lintel. A crack developed in the top surface of the reinforced con-
crete rim over the lintel support (Figure 8b). The ultimate load-bearing
capacity was exceeded as a result of failure of the lintel and masonry
units at its support. The maximum destructive force for the lintel was
207 kN, and the corresponding deflection was 7.7 mm.
372
F I G U R E 9 Crack development in the model M2SO-Z2: (a) first cracks and (b) failure state
Source: Author.
F I G U R E 1 0 Relationships of load and deflection
Source: Author.
In the second model confined along its perimeter (MSO-Z2), the
cracking scheme of the area over the window opening was similar.
The differences were only observed in the final phase of loading, while
blocks were crashed and head parts were splitting. In the model MSO-
Z2, the obtained cracking force was 50 kN and the maximum destruc-
tive force was 223 kN. The corresponding values of a deflection were
0.4 mm at the moment of cracking and 18.5 mm in the final phase of the
element failure.
In the model M2SO-Z2 with additional cores at the window open-
ing, the crack developed along the bed joints between the lintel and the
masonry, at the load of 50 kN and a deflection of 0.5 mm. The slight load
increase caused elongation of the crack in the bed joint until the core.
Also, flexural vertical cracks developed at the lintel midspan and at
the junction between the prefabricated lintel and the core (Figure 9a).
The cracks were symmetrical. A further increase in loading elongated
and widened existing cracks and developed diagonal cracks intersect-
ing bottom cracks caused by bending (Figure 9b).
The maximum destructive force for the lintel was 268 kN, and
the corresponding deflection was 8.7 mm. Failure of the model was
caused by vertical and diagonal cracking of the reinforced concrete rim
directly over the lintel. Cracking scheme in the model M2SO-Z1 was
similar to the model M2SO-Z2. First cracks also appeared over the lin-
tel and at the junction with the core under the force of 50 kN and at a
deflection of 0.7 mm. The maximum destructive force for the lintel was
264 kN, and the corresponding deflection was 7.2 mm. The ultimate
load-bearing capacity of test model was overstepped by destruction of
rim. In Figure 10, load deflection relationship of series of wall models
is shown. The results of the research were compared with the results
DROBIEC ET AL .
of the numerical analysis (made in the Atena 2D program). Numeri-
cal models were created based on material parameters and numerical
models presented in [6].
2.2.2 Models series MIII-N
In the NIII-NI3 model, the first crack was observed on the bottom edge
of the lintel at a load of 72.0 kN and a deflection of 0.2 mm. At the
same time, the head joint between the masonry units over the lintel
started to widen. Then a second symmetrical crack appeared on lintel
and further crack in the vertical joints between the wall units above
the lintel appeared. At a load of 150.9 kN and a deflection of about
0.56 mm, a diagonal crack formed in the support zone running from
the top edge of the lintel. With a further increase in force (207 kN and
1.1 mm deflection), further cracks were created and the adhesion in
the support joint between the rim and the wall elements (Figure 11a)
was lost. The cracks of the masonry elements below the lintel support
occurred at a load of 351 kN and a deflection of 3.7 mm. The maxi-
mum destroying force was 408 kN and the corresponding deflection
was 5.6 mm.
In the NIII-NI4 model, the vertical joint was first split between the
masonry units and the loss of adhesion in the bed joints between the
lintel and the wall at a load of 62 kN and a deflection of 0.2 mm. The first
bending crack appeared on the lintel at a load of 70 kN and a deflec-
tion of still 0.2 mm. Crack from the top edge of the lintel in the support
zone appeared at a load of 120 kN and a deflection of 0.4 mm. A fur-
ther increase in the load caused cracks development over the support
zone and also the diagonal cracks analogically to lintels tested as sim-
ply supported beams (Figure 11b). Cracks of the masonry units under
the lintel occurred at a load of 260 kN and a deflection of 2.0 mm. The
model was destroyed at the maximum load value of 411 kN and the lin-
tel deflection 5.4 mm.
In the NIII-NI5 model, after the wall had been prestressed, bed
joints under and over the lintel were cracked. When the vertical load
was applied, the bed joints were closed again. At a load of about 70 kN
and a deflection of 0.37 mm, vertical cracks between the masonry units
and delamination in the bed joints above the lintel appeared. With a
slight increase in load to 75 kN and a deflection of up to 0.4 mm, the
crack caused by bending moment was visible on the lower edge of the
lintel. At a load of 120 kN and a deflection of 1.2 mm, a crack running
from the upper edge of the lintel appeared in the support zone. With a
deflection of 3.2 mm and a load of 230 kN, the adhesion in the horizon-
tal joint over the lintel was broken. At a load of 340 kN and a deflection
of 6.1 mm, the wall was cracked at the edge of the lintel support. The
maximum breaking force was 365 kN and the corresponding deflection
was 9.8 mm. Damage to the model occurred as a result of splitting wall
elements in the lintel support area (Figure 11c).
DROBIEC ET AL .
F I G U R E 1 1 Stages of crack development in the model: (a) NIII-NI3, (b) NIII-NI4, and (c) NIII-NI5
Source: Własne.
FIGURE 12 Relationships between the lintel load and deflection
Source: Author.
In the NII-NI6 model, first, the head joint was widened between the
masonry units above the lintel at a load of 32 kN and the deflection
of the lintel 0.1. As the first one on the lintel, there appeared a crack
from the upper edge above the support zone with a load of 93 kN and
a deflection of 0.4 mm. With a load of up to 103 kN and a deflection of
0.5 mm, a crack propagated from the lower edge of the lintel. Masonry
units under the lintel support were created at a load of 295 kN and a
deflection of 5.4 mm. The maximum load value was 345 kN and its cor-
responding deflection was 9.4 mm. In Figure 12, load deflection rela-
tionship of series NIII-NI is shown. The results of the research were
compared with the results of the numerical analysis (made in the Atena
2D program) presented in [6] and with the results of the other models
in this series.
373
2.2.3 Lintels
In element A4, cracks appeared at a load of 9.5 kN and a deflection of
1.5 mm. The destruction was caused by the loss of the load-bearing
capacity of the longitudinal reinforcement anchorage and the maxi-
mum load value was 28.8 kN and the corresponding deflection 4.5 mm.
The models 1 and 2 of the F series were cracked at a load of about
10 kN (F1) and 8 kN (F2) and a deflection of 1.0 mm. The destruction
of the both of the beams occurred at a force of 21 kN and a deflec-
tion of 3.4 mm (F1) and 4.9 mm (F2). The F3 lintel was prematurely
damaged as a result of a reinforcement defect. Its results will not be
taken into account in further analysis. In the G series, the models were
scratched at 12.1 kN (G1), 14.0 kN (G2), and 131 kN (G3), and the cor-
responding deflections were, respectively, 1.4 mm (G1 and G2 models)
and 1.6 mm (model G3). The destructive force and the corresponding
deflection amounted to 32.8 kN and 5.3 mm in the G1 model, 39.0 kN
and 5.4 mm in the G2 model, and 28.3 kN and 4.7 mm in the G3 model.
Figure 13 presents diagrams of load deflection dependence for each
test series of lintels.
The influence of the mode of the lintel support (through bearings
and plates with a larger contact surface) on the load capacity of the
lintels was negligible as presented by Vermeltfoort [7]. In the tested
lintels, the G-series elements obtained significantly higher values of
breaking force and deflection in relation to the elements of series A
and F. However, all lintels were destroyed in the same way regard-
less of the method of the support. First, cracks were created from the
bending moment under the point of load application and subsequent
cracks were formed in the area between the points of application of
the load (Figure 14a). As the load increased further, the cracks prop-
agated toward the upper edge of the lintel and increased the opening
width. Cracks caused by bending that arise under the load application
374 DROBIEC ET AL .

F I G U R E 1 3 Relationships of load deflection and load displacement of longitudinal reinforcement in series: (a) A, (b) F, and (c) G
Source: Author.

F I G U R E 1 4 Stages of crack development in the model series: (a) first cracks, (b) cracks at ultimate state, and (c) cracks at ultimate state
Source: Author.

site had a characteristic curved shape that according to Kostynia and
Kaszubska [8] means the effect of a weak reinforcement anchorage.
After reaching the maximum force, diagonal cracks were created that
could change into horizontal cracks running at the level of the longi-
tudinal reinforcement (Figure 14b) or horizontal cracks were directly
connected to the cracks from bending (Figure 14c).
3 ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS
The permissible standard deflection of the lintel should not be greater
than leff /500. In the case of the analyzed lintels and effective span
leff = 1666 mm, their deflection cannot be greater than 3.33 mm. In the
study of lintels series A, F, and G, the first scratches were created at the
DROBIEC ET AL . 375

TA B L E 1 Results of lintels and walls tests

Deflection at first Load at first crack, Maximum deflection,

Elements of tests crack, fcr (mm) Fcr (kN) fu (mm) Failure load, Fu (kN)
Specimen Value from Mean Value from Mean Value from Mean Value from Mean
Set no. no. specimen value specimen value specimen value specimen value
A 2 1.674 1.554 15.291 13.48 3.362 4.078 24.985 26.739
3 1.486 15.701 4.373 26.469
4 1.502 9.447 4.500 28.763
F 1 1.096 0.814 10.335 10.768 3.387 11.459 21.020 26.686
2 0.983 7.918 4.885 21.336
3 0.363 3.283 14.646 11.015
G 1 1.359 1.434 12.104 13.076 5.252 5.142 32.775 33.395
2 1.570 13.997 5.434 39.048
3 1.374 13.127 4.740 28.362
NIII-N 1 0.688 0.461 60.5 45.302 5.283 7.701 151.2 202.308
2 0.824 140.7 11.074 356.7
3 0.203 72.0 5.200 408.0
4 0.244 70.0 5.431 411.0
5 0.372 70.0 9.815 365.0
6 0.434 93.0 9.403 434.9
MNSO Z1 0.800 0.800 80.0 80.0 9.477 8.559 189.3 192.6
Z2 0.800 80.0 7.640 195.9
MSO Z1 0.250 0.325 50.0 50.0 7.658 13.107 206.9 214.7
Z2 0.400 50.0 18.556 222.5
M2SO Z1 0.700 0.600 50.0 50.0 7.191 7.936 263.6 265.8
Z2 0.500 50.0 8.680 268.1

deflections representing 30–50% of the permissible deflection and the
cracking forces constituted from 33% to 61% of the destructive force.
At the time of failure, the deflection exceeded the allowable value from
1% to 63%. In the elements of the NIII-N series, cracks occurred at the
level of deflection of the lintel from 6% to 25% of permissible deflec-
tion. Cracking forces ranged from 17% to 40% of the maximum load. At
the time of obtaining the maximum load value of the models, the deflec-
tion of the lintels ranged from 156% to 332% of the allowable deflec-
tion. In the case of wall in the natural scale tests, the cracks occurred
at deflection and strength, constituting from 8% to 24% permissible
deflection and from 19% to 42% of the destructive load, respectively.
Values of lintels deflection at the maximum load value ranged from
216% to 557% of the limit value. Table 1 summarizes the results of the
research.
In the case of lintels examined as beams, horizontal cracks occurred
rapidly and were caused by the loss of the load-bearing capacity of the
longitudinal reinforcement anchorage. The bending of the horizontal
stirrup arm and the indication of displacement sensors at the ends of
the longitudinal reinforcement undoubtedly confirm the loss of load
capacity of the longitudinal reinforcement anchorage. The displace-
ment of the longitudinal reinforcement takes place on one side of the
lintel and starts already at the load level constituting 70% of the break-
ing load. Analysis of the correct anchoring of reinforcement in the sup-
port zone is presented in [9], which shows the dangerous phenomenon
of rapid destruction of the element.
In the case of wall models (walls on a natural scale and NIII-N series),
there is no sudden loss of load-bearing capacity due to the presence
of a reinforced concrete rim and additional stresses in the area of the
lintel support restoring the concrete. Large vertical displacements in
the middle of the lintel span causes the horizontal displacement of the
longitudinal reinforcement of lintels in the support area without hor-
izontal cracks observer in series A, F, and G tests. In masonry models,
load-bearing capacity is reached as a result of splitting the masonry
units and crushing lintels in support zones or excessive destruction
of the rim. The lintel's crack in the support area running from the
upper edge indicates the occurrence of a positive supporting bending
moment. As numerical analyses have shown [6] the value of the posi-
tive bending moment on the support may be greater than in the span.
Therefore, the lintel reinforcement should have the appropriate area
and anchorage bearing capacity.
4 CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the conducted experimental tests, the following conclu-
sions can be drawn:
• examination of the lintels in accordance with the standard [2] in a
simply supported beam scheme does not reflect the lintel behavior
after being built into the wall but only at the assembly stage
376
• results from three test series demonstrated the greatest concentra-
tion of stresses in the prefabricated lintel at its support, and not at
the midspan of the element. This observation was confirmed by the
numerical analysis [6]
• in all tested models of lintel embedded in wall (despite the different
wall construction), cracks running from the upper edge of the lintel
occurred in the support area of the lintel and were caused by a posi-
tive bending moment
• the sequence and location of cracks in the tested walls were differ-
ent, however, the final distribution of cracks was very similar, and
• the load-bearing capacity of the lintels tested without the masonry
units and a rim was nearly 10 times lower than the load-bearing
capacity of the wall models.
REFERENCES
1. 845-2:2013-10 PN-EN. Specification for ancillary components for
masonry. Part 2: Lintels. 2013.
2. PN-EN 846-9:2002. Methods of test for ancillary components for
masonry. Part 9: Determination of flexural resistance and shear resis-
tance of lintels. 2000.
3. PN EN 1996-1-1: Eurocode 6. Design of masonry structures – Part 1-
1: General rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures.
1996.
DROBIEC ET AL .
4. Mazur W, Drobiec Ł, Jasiński R. Research of light concrete precast lin-
tels. Procedia Eng. 2016;161:611–617.
5. Drobiec Ł, Jasiński R, Mazur W. Precast lintels made of autoclaved
aerated concrete: tests and theoretical analyses. Cem Wapno Beton.
2017;5:399–413.
6. Mazur W, Drobiec Ł, Jasiński R. Research and numerical investigation of
masonry—AAC precast lintels interaction. Procedia Eng. 2017;193:385–
392.
7. Vermeltfoort AT. Efect of Support Conditions on Lintel-Masonry
Interaction. 11th Canadian Masonry Symposium, Toronto, Ontario,
May 31–June 3; 2009.
8. Kostynia R, Kaszubska M. Influence of nonmetallic flexural rein-
forcement on failure mechanisms and shear capacity of concrete
beams without transversal reinforcement. J Civil Eng Environ Architect.
2017;34:247–258.
9. Kuene K, Boutros M. Details of reinforcement of autoclaved aerated
concrete lintels for shear and anchorage. Mater Struct. 1998;31:536–
542.
How to cite this article: Drobiec Ł, Jasiński R, Mazur W.
Analysis of AAC precast lintels embedded in walls different con-
struction. ce papers. 2018;2:367–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/
cepa.830.