Evaluation of Masonry Assemblage Strength In Accordance With CSA S304-14 And ASTM C1314-18 Requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Masonry is commonly used in construction and has made the industry an integral part of both the Canadian and U.S. economies. The requirements related to materials, design, and construction methods for masonry that are currently used in Canada and the U.S., however, vary remarkably even though these requirements were fundamentally developed from the results of a small pool of supporting literature that has been published worldwide. The notable differences between the Canadian and the U.S. design requirements for masonry are affecting the Canadian and the U.S. masonry industry, potentially holding back synergies and cost savings that may otherwise be available. While some differences can be easily isolated and compared, others such as the reported masonry assemblage strengths form the basis of the Canadian and the U.S design codes, cause a comparison between the two codes difficult. An experimental investigation with the aim of evaluating and comparing the requirements related to prism geometry, construction, and testing in accordance with both the Canadian masonry prism requirements,as specified in Annex D of CSA S304-14: Design of Masonry Structures, and the U.S. masonry prism standard ASTM C1314-18: Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry, was therefore performed at the University of Saskatchewan. A set of conversion factors was established to correlate the reported masonry assemblage strengths determined in accordance with ASTM C1314-18 to those determined in accordance with CSA S304-14. Results also showed that smaller prisms can be constructed and used to verify the assemblage strength of constituent materials on construction sites in Canada. Changes to the commentary in Annex D of CSA S304-14 as related to Canadian prism test requirements are also supported.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".