MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027057855 · doi:10.1139/l02-097

Lateral resistance of bolted wood-to-concrete connections loaded parallel or perpendicular to grain

2003· article· en· W2027057855 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mazian Mohammad, Erol Karacabeyli, J. H. P. Quenneville

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbedmentStructural engineeringFastenerBolted jointPerpendicularComposite materialMaterials scienceEngineeringMathematicsFinite element methodGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tests were carried out to determine the lateral resistance of bolted lumber-to-concrete connections. Specimens were made of hemlock–fir and spruce–pine–fir lumber and bolted to concrete blocks using anchor bolts. Three sizes of anchor bolts were used, with nominal diameters of 12.7 mm (1/2 in.), 15.8 mm (5/8 in.), and 19.1 mm (3/4 in.). The minimum strength of the connections loaded parallel to grain with a single bolt exceeds the characteristic strength specified in the 1994 edition of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standard O86.1 by a factor of 1.6 for 12.7 mm (1/2 in.) diameter bolts and 2.0 for 19.1 mm (3/4 in.) diameter bolts. Results on connections loaded perpendicular to grain showed that the 5th percentile strength of a connection with a single bolt was greater than the characteristic strength specified in the CSA standard by a factor of 1.4–2.5. The reasons for this underestimation of the strength values in the standard are attributed to a low estimate of the embedment strengths of wood and concrete, a low estimate of the yield strength of the bolts, and the lack of a design method that accounts for the axial tensioning effect. Changes to the CSA standard O86.1 provisions were proposed and have been accepted to improve the strength predictions of bolted wood-to-concrete connections. The 2001 edition of standard O86.1 reflects those changes.Key words: wood, anchor bolts, concrete, strength, parallel to grain, perpendicular-to-grain embedment, connections.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207