Behaviour of partially grouted hollow concrete masonry subjected to concentrated loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental programme was performed to study the behaviour of hollow concrete masonry wallettes with bond beams and vertical columns of grout subjected to concentrated loads. Forty-three wallettes were tested, with concentrated loads being applied either concentrically or eccentrically, through various-sized loading plates above the grout columns or on the bond beams above the hollow blocks. When the concentrated load was applied above the grout columns, the face shells of the hollow block units attached to the grout columns split and the columns subsequently crushed. When the load was applied on the bond beams, wallettes failed similarly to hollow masonry walls without vertical columns of grout, with web splitting and vertical cracking in line with the load, followed by face-shell spalling and (or) mortar crushing. When the eccentricity was one third of the wall thickness, failure was dominated by local spalling beneath the loading plate. The testing programme and mechanisms of failure are described, together with strength variation with increasing eccentricity, and dispersion of the concentrated load through the bond beam. General implications for the design of hollow concrete masonry with bond beams and vertical columns of grout subjected to concentrated loads are discussed.Key words: hollow concrete masonry, bond beam, grout columns, concentrated load, concentric, eccentric.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".