MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dynamic Fracture Toughness of Sandstone Masonry Beams Bound with Fiber-Reinforced Mortars

2012· article· en· W2001141661 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Md. Toihidul Islam, Vivek Bindiganavile

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials in Civil Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicBuilding materials and conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsMortarMasonryMaterials scienceComposite materialBendingLime mortarSlippageGeotechnical engineeringStructural engineeringGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports the fracture parameters of bond in stone masonry beams bound with plain and fiber-reinforced mortar. Sandstone blocks were joined together with a modern Type S mortar conforming to the Canadian standard. A companion series was examined employing a hydraulic lime mortar, typically used in the restoration of historical masonry. Based on a previous study, polypropylene microfibers were incorporated at up to 0.50% by volume to achieve superior crack growth resistance. This study evaluated the critical stress intensity factor, the critical effective crack length, and the critical crack mouth opening displacements. The masonry beams were subjected to quasi-static flexure as per ASTM and dynamic bending through a drop weight impact machine that generated stress rates up to 107 kPa/s. The study reveals that there is an improvement in the bond strength due to fibers but a difference in the fracture performance between the Type S and hydraulic lime mortars. Whereas with Type S mortar, fibers promote failure through fracture in the stone block especially under dynamic loading, in the hydraulic lime mortar fiber reinforcement moves the failure plane from the interface to within the bulk mortar.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials in Civil EngineeringSame topicBuilding materials and conservationFrench-language works237,207