Effect of Height-to-Thickness Ratio on Compressive Strength of Masonry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A prism is a representative combination of masonry materials which is tested in compression to determine the specified compressive strength of masonry, f’m. This strength is then used in designing a masonry structure or testing compliance of f’m. Canadian standard CSA S304.1-04 suggests using prisms with a height-to-thickness ratio of five for determining the specified compressive strength, without the need for correction. For convenience, prisms with smaller height-to-thickness ratios are often used. Hence, Table D.1 of the Canadian standard provides correction factors to accurately estimate the specified compressive strength when prisms with smaller height-to-thickness ratio are used. According to this table, the correction factor for hollow concrete masonry construction does not change even if the height-to-thickness ratio changes in the range of three to five. Further, for grouted masonry, conflicting values for the correction factors are reported by various researchers. Hence, this study was completed to revisit the corrections factors recommended for concrete masonry in Table D.1 of Canadian standard CSA S304.1.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".