Evaluation of aramid and carbon fibre reinforced polymer composite tendons for prestressed ground anchors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the tension and bond properties of commercially available Aramid fibre reinforced polymer (AFRP) and carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) rods and their uplift and sustained loading behaviour as ground anchor tendons. Variables for the tests were tendon type and constituent, grout type, and bond or fixed anchor length. Test results indicated that the tension properties of fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) rods were close to the reported data. The surface geometry of FRP rods and the properties of filling grouts influenced the pullout behaviour and bond strength of grouted FRP rods. CFRP Carbon Fiber Composite Cable and Leadline anchors had a higher uplift capacity but lower creep displacement than AFRP Arapree and Technora anchors. The tested CFRP monorod and FRP multirod anchors with a 1000 mm fixed anchor length exhibited an acceptable uplift behaviour according to existing codes. Creep behaviour appeared to control the long-term uplift capacity of prestressed FRP ground anchors. The recommended working load for post-tensioned FRP ground anchors is 0.40 fpu for AFRP rods and 0.50fpu for CFRP rods, where fpu is the ultimate load or strength of the anchor tendon.Key words: FRP, tendon, bond stress, anchorage, grouted anchor, fixed anchor length, free anchor length, slip, creep.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".