Experimental study of static behaviour of stud shear connectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental program involving the test of 25 push-out specimens was conducted to study the behaviour and strength of shear studs in the application of composite bridge decks and to assess the detailing requirement specified in the code practice. Testing parameters included reinforcement mesh position, presence of stud head, and stud height. An alternative type of shear studs, referred to as adjustable studs, was also studied and its capacity was compared with conventional studs. Results showed that the position of reinforcement mesh affected the specimen failure mode and ultimate load. Comparing with the cases where the mesh was placed either flush with the stud head or above the stud, the maximum ultimate load was reached and the failure was by stud shear-off when the mesh intercepted the studs. Shear studs with heads resulted in a higher ultimate load in specimens than unheaded shear studs. In the comparison between conventional and adjustable shear studs, while they shared similar failure modes, adjustable studs showed on average lower load capacity than their conventional counterparts. For all specimens studied, only specimens with reinforcement mesh satisfying the detailing requirement were able to attain the code specified strength.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".