MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205196132 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13706

Impact Load Effects on Post-Installed Anchors: An Experimental Investigation

2019· dissertation· en· W3205196132 on OpenAlexafffund
Aliu Abdul-Hamid

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Response to Dynamic Loads
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWedge (geometry)Structural engineeringStrain rateTension (geology)Materials scienceGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialEngineeringMathematicsUltimate tensile strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The experimental study was carried out to assess the suitability of three proprietary postinstalled anchors from Simpson Inc. for use under high strain-rate loading, such as blast loadings, in both tension and in shear.The anchors investigated included two torquecontrolled expansion anchors (Strong Bolt ® 2, Wedge-All ® ) and a screw anchor (Titen HD ® ) .While three different diameters (6.4 mm, 9.5 mm and 12.7 mm) of the Strong Bolt ® 2 and Titen HD ® anchors were investigated, only two diameters (9.5 mm and 12.7 mm) of Wedge-All ® anchors were investigated.The anchor capacities under static loading conditions with average strain rate of 3.0 × 10 - 4 /s were compared with those for impact-loads with average strain rate of 1 /s to define a Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF).The failure modes under both conditions were also assessed to ascertain the change as the loading rate increased.For tensile loading, the results show that the Wedge-All ® and 6.4-mm diameter Strong Bolt ® 2 anchors may not be suitable for dynamic loading conditions.The Titen HD ® as well as the 9.5-mm and 12.7-mm diameter Strong Bolt ® 2 anchors are suitable for high strain-rate loading of up to 1 /s.The torque-controlled expansion anchors failed predominantly in pull-through failure mode under the high strain-rate loading conditions even though they failed in a variety (steel fracture failure, concrete breakout and beam splitting) of modes under static loading condition.The Titen HD ® anchors failed predominantly in a mixed pull-out and concrete breakout mode under both static and high strain-rate loading conditions.Under high strain rate shear loading, the 9.5-mm and 12.7-mm diameter anchors (Strong Bolt ® , Wedge-All ® and Titen HD) were found to be suitable for dynamic loading iii conditions.The predominant failure modes for anchors under shear loading, both under static loading and high strain-rate, was steel fracture failure.Dynamic increase factors (DIF) of 1.1 and 1.2 are recommended for Titen HD and the 9.5mm and 12.7-mm diameter Strong Bolt 2 anchors respectively for high strain rate up to 1 /s under tension loading.A DIF of 1.2 is recommended for the Titen HD anchors while DIFs of 1.0 and 1.2 are recommended for the 9.5-mm diameter and 12.7-mm diameter respectively for Strong Bolt 2 and Wedge-All anchors under shear loading up to strain rate of 1.0 /s.

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)0.003
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Response to Dynamic LoadsFrench-language works237,207