Fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP)-to-concrete joints anchored with FRP anchors: tests and experimental trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports an investigation on the influence of anchors made from fibre-reinforced polymer (herein FRP anchors) when applied to FRP-to-concrete bonds. The experimental section of the paper consists of 44 tests on FRP-to-concrete joints of which 20 joints are unanchored controls and 24 joints are anchored with FRP anchors. The influence of plate width, plate thickness and plate elastic modulus are considered as these parameters have received little to no attention to date. An increase in plate width is shown to considerably enhance the joint strength although the influence of the anchor decreases. The other two test parameters are shown to be less influential. The analytical section of the paper involves regression modelling of components of a large test database on FRP-to-concrete joints anchored with FRP anchors compiled elsewhere by the authors. The models, which are calibrated in best-fit and design forms, allow experimental trends to be readily observed and quantified within the bounds of the experimental data for three influential parameters of plate length, angle of anchor insertion, and plate width. Finally, a combined regression model is proposed and it is evaluated with tests on FRP-to-concrete joints anchored with multiple anchors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".