Effect of Test Conditions on the Compressive Strength of Hollow Concrete Masonry Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In North America, the compressive strength of masonry units is used to verify conformity to the masonry compressive strength design values. Therefore, accurate determination of the unit strength is paramount. However, the majority of the testing facilities are not equipped to test full concrete masonry units. Furthermore, whereas information on the influence of test parameters on masonry compressive strength is available, their effect on the unit compressive strength has not been adequately investigated. Sixty standard eight inch concrete masonry units and sixty segments and coupons were tested for compressive strength under uniaxial compression according to the American Standard ASTM C140 and the Canadian Standard CSA A165.1. The compressive strength of the units was investigated under different test conditions including: the specimen size (full units, full length face-shell segments, and face-shell and web coupons); the loaded area (full net-area and face-shell area); and the capping material (no capping, Gypsum plaster, and Sulfur). Coupons sawcut from full units provided compressive strength values comparable to those obtained by testing full units. The compressive strength values for units loaded only on the face shells were found to be higher than for units loaded on the full net-area. This finding is another plausible explanation to the observed difference in masonry compressive strength between hollow and grouted construction.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".