Behaviour of adhesive steel anchors under impulse-type loading
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".