Behavior of Masonry Subject to Load Parallel to Bed Face
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concrete masonry construction comprises of concrete block units and mortar joints in horizontal and vertical directions known as bed and head joints, respectively. The faces or surfaces parallel to these joints are called bed and head faces, respectively. Cells of the blocks and other voids in load bearing masonry structural components are usually grouted. Traditionally, the compressive strength of masonry is determined by applying a monotonically increasing compressive load normal to the bed face on a small segment of a masonry assemblage, known as “prism”. However, compressive load in beams and lintels acts parallel to the bed face. It is believed that masonry is much weaker when load is applied parallel to the bed face. It is presumed that this strength is further reduced if the grout in the compression zone is interrupted by the webs of the blocks though no research data is available to support this presumption. Therefore, the Canadian standard recommends a strength reduction factor of 0.5 or 0.7 depending on whether or not there is an interruption in the grout continuity in the compression zone. It is argued that the reduction factors (0.5 and 0.7) suggested in the Canadian standard are overly conservative. Hence, a detailed research program using experimental tests on prism specimens with three levels of grout interruption was completed. The prism specimens were loaded in two different directions: parallel to the bed face and perpendicular to the bed face. The study found that the detrimental effect of interruption in grout continuity is not as severe as it is presumed and the strength parallel to the bed face is higher than the strength normal to the bed face. This paper presents the test specimens, test procedure, and test results obtained from this study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".