Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, bolt shear capacities are reviewed using the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) philosophy. Only bolt-shear limit states are addressed, although one aspect of slip critical limit states is addressed incidentally. This paper does not consider bolt bearing limit states. Test data used to justify the adoption of ASTM A325 and A490 high-strength bolts was obtained from previous research programs. The data also included various types of rivets and Huck bolts for general comparison. First, the test data is used to evaluate the current American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC, 2005) and Research Council on Structural Connections (RCSC, 2004) bolt shear provisions and to determine the current reliability, beta, which is found to be conservative when based on a resistance factor, phi, of 0.75. The appropriateness of the phi-factor for bolt shear is addressed. Canadian (CSA S16-01) and Eurocode (EN 1993) provisions are also evaluated and shown not to be compatible with the test results. Two design equations are developed—one linear, one a step function—that result in a beta value slightly greater than 3.0, appropriate for a manufactured product. The single-step function (with a step at 38 in.) is recommended for inclusion in updated design specifications. This design provision increases the design strength by 12.5% for short connections and by 17.2% for long connections. The test data indicate that there is no need for a bolt strength reduction due to the length of the connection, provided that the connection material gross and net section areas exceed certain ratios. That ratio is a function of the connection material yield and tensile strength, the total bolt shear area and the bolt tensile 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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.023 |
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".