Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A review of the methods used to design anchors for masonry in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Europe and the United States was conducted. It was determined that with the exception of the American standard (MSJC), most provisions for connections for masonry require anchors to be designed using some form of performance based criteria. The MSJC uses design equations to predict anchor behavior and an evaluation of these equations using recent published test results suggests that the nominal tension anchor bolt capacity equations appear to give relatively good results at smaller anchor diameters. However, unaccounted for tension splitting/flexural modes appear to be present in larger anchor diameters. The investigations also suggest that the shear load provisions in the MSJC appear to be adequate when predicting the capacity of smaller diameter bolts, but they can be very unconservative for shear load capacities for bolts above 19 mm in diameter. The masonry break out equation does not appear to accurately predict the splitting/prying masonry failures observed with these large diameter anchors. In addition, it appears that splitting failures may occur in smaller masonry assemblies and further work must be conducted to determine if this is a testing protocol artifact or a failure mode that can be realistically expected in the field such as the proposed shear bearing model. Finally, results of combined shear and tension load tests, appear to suggest that the interaction equation for anchors used in grouted cavities in masonry assemblies is a power function, with a value between 1.4 and 1.67.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".