MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079443059 · doi:10.1139/l02-103

Behaviour of partially grouted hollow concrete masonry subjected to concentrated loads

2003· article· en· W2079443059 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Junyi Yi, Nigel G. Shrive

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMasonry and Concrete Structural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroutMasonrySpallMaterials scienceCrackingStructural engineeringMortarBond strengthBeam (structure)Geotechnical engineeringEccentricity (behavior)Structural loadComposite materialGeologyAdhesiveEngineeringLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.174
Teacher spread0.168 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicMasonry and Concrete Structural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207