MECHANICAL PERFORMANCE OF LIME-CEMENT MORTAR FOR STRAW-BALE CONSTRUCTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Experimental data describing the mechanical performance of Portland cement- hydrated lime mortars used for straw bale construction is presented. Straw bale construction uses stacked straw bales plastered on each side to form load-bearing elements. Mortars used have slumps of approximately 50 mm, compared to slumps up to 279 mm for conventional masonry mortars. Cylinder and cube tests of a range of typical straw bale mortar mixes were carried out. The mortars had compressive strengths ranging between 0.3 MPa and 13 MPa. Empirical equations describing the relationships between compressive strength and curing time, w/cm ratio, proportions of lime, cement and sand, and modulus of elasticity are presented. The data show that cement-lime mortars for straw bale construction will have a higher modulus of elasticity and lower failure strain than a conventional mortar of equivalent compressive strength. The Modulus of Elasticity is on average 818 times the compressive strength of a straw bale mortar, compared to 100 to 200 times as reported in the literature for conventional mortar. The average failure strain for straw bale mortar is 0.00253 compared to 0.0087 to 0.0270 reported in the literature for conventional 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".