Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased use of carbon fiber–reinforced polymer (CFRP) rods in prestressed concrete applications has been challenged by identifying a suitable anchor system. To overcome such a challenge, the design of a simplified anchor system composed of three wedges and a barrel, without a soft sleeve, is presented to duplicate the simplicity of the widely utilized anchor systems in steel strands. A numerical study and experimental verification of the simplified anchor system for a CFRP rod are presented. Three-dimensional (3D) finite-element modeling has been conducted on the anchor system consisting of isotropic steel wedges and barrel, in addition to an orthotropic CFRP rod. The wedges and barrel are modeled as elastoplastic materials of different hardness. The rod/wedge and wedge/barrel interfaces are simulated using surface-based contact models having different coefficients of friction. Two hardness levels [171 and 319 Vickers hardness numbers (VPN)] are considered for the wedges. When the softer wedges are utilized the ultimate tensile strength of the CFRP is attained. With the harder wedges the rod fails prematurely due to slippage followed by fracture. The performance of the anchor system using numerical modeling successfully describes the experimental results.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".