Behaviour of adhesive steel anchors under impulse-type loading
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dynamic behaviour of adhesive anchors embedded in concrete is not well established, neither is their behaviour in stone masonry. This paper presents an experimental program designed to study the dynamic behaviour of adhesive anchor – substrate systems under impulse-type loading. The adhesive anchor – substrate systems consisted of steel rods bonded to concrete and limestone with an epoxy-based adhesive. Two steel anchor diameters (6.4 and 9.5 mm), two embedment depths (89 and 114 mm), and two angles of substrate penetration (90° and 45°) were investigated. The predominant failure mode observed for the steel anchor – concrete substrate samples was steel fracture, whereas for the steel anchor – limestone substrate samples, both steel fracture and limestone substrate failure modes were observed. The test results show that in most cases the dynamic increase factor (DIF) of adhesive anchors decreases with an increase in the embedment depth. Also, a substrate penetration angle of 45° increases the DIF in comparison with samples with 90° penetration angle. The DIFs of 1.2 and 2.5 are recommended for adhesive anchors with normal and 45° limestone substrate penetrations, respectively, while for concrete substrate, the recommended DIFs are 1.2 and 3.2 for normal and 45° substrate penetrations, respectively.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it