Seismic Performance of Drop-In Anchors in Concrete under Shear and Tension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an experimental study conducted on the behavior of drop-in anchors in uncracked concrete slabs. Both seismic (cyclic) load tests and static load tests to collapse are performed on drop-in anchors subjected to tension or shear forces. Three different anchor sizes are subjected to seismic qualification testing, followed by a static load test to collapse. The test results confirm the capability of the tested anchors to sustain simulated pulsating seismic tension and shear loading with frequency ranges between 0.1 and 2.0 Hz. It was observed that no tension failure occurred at the end of the cyclic load tests for all the tested anchors, and their residual inelastic maximum displacement at the end of the cyclic tension test was relatively small. Moreover, the experimental results show that the anchors’ ultimate capacities are higher than those specified by the anchor manufacturer. Finally, the anchors’ experimental pullout shear capacities are compared with the failure prediction equations in the literature and design codes. It is found that the theoretical models provide a conservative prediction of the concrete breakout of anchors in tension compared to the experimental ultimate loads. The coefficient for pry-out strength (kcp) equal to 2 or slightly smaller than 2 is likely to predict a better pry-out capacity with the experimental results compared to the application of the high conservative value of kcp equal to 1, as given in the code.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".