Effect of edge distance on shear friction capacity of steel plates anchored with reinforcing bars in comparison with headed bolts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shear friction capacity calculated using clauses 11.6.4 to 11.6.10 in ACI 318-14 or clauses 11.5.1 to 11.5.6 in CSA-A23.3-14 do not take into consideration the effect of edge distance on the shear friction capacity. The main objectives of this research are to study the effect of edge distance on the shear friction capacity by means of a specifically designed experimental program, to determine the minimum edge distance to develop the shear friction capacity, and to derive an expression for reduction of shear friction capacity for edge distances less than the minimum edge distance. The study involved testing eight specimens. In four specimens, a steel plate was anchored using welded reinforcing steel bars, and in the other four specimens the steel plate was anchored using headed concrete anchors (bolts) (HCA). The steel plates were tested under shear load at edge distances of 75, 150, 225, and 300 mm (3.0, 6.0, 9.0, and 12.0 in), for the two types of anchorage. The results were compared to design values according to ACI 318-14 and CAN/CSA-A23.3-14 standards. An equation is derived to compute the minimum edge distance after which the full shear friction capacity is developed. Another equation is derived to compute the proposed shear capacity for reinforcing bar anchors for edge distances less than the minimum edge distance.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".