Influence of Test Method on Direct Shear Behavior of Segmental Retaining Wall Units
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper reports the results of interface shear testing carried out to investigate the influence of test methodology on shear-displacement behavior of five different segmental (modular) masonry concrete block configurations. The tests were carried out in general conformance with existing ASTM and National Concrete Masonry Association test protocols. Three different normal load arrangements were investigated: (1) flexible airbag, (2) fixed vertical piston, and (3) an adjustable vertical piston. A video-extensometer camera device was used to record block deformations in the vertical plane during testing. The test results showed that the three load arrangements gave similar shear capacity failure envelopes for the frictional block system with flat concrete surfaces. For more typical block systems with concrete shear keys and trailing lips that exhibit dilatant interface shear behavior, or a system with shear pins, the most consistent test results were developed using the flexible airbag arrangement. The results of this paper can be used to guide the selection of the loading arrangement for conventional laboratory modular block shear testing.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it