Tensile Behavior of FRP Tendons for Prestressed Ground Anchors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research work reported in this paper involves investigation of the tensile behavior of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) ground anchors. Variables of the tests on the anchor models were anchor fixed length, tendon type, and tendon constituent. Sixteen monorod and four multirod grouted aramid FRP (AFRP) (Arapree and Technora) and carbon FRP (CFRP) (CFCC and Leadline) anchors were tested according to standard methods of tensile tests and sustained load tests under different load levels. Test results indicated that AFRP Arapree and Technora monorod anchors showed higher displacement and slip in comparison with CFRP CFCC and Leadline anchors. Technora anchors failed because of the detaching of winding fibers from the core of the rod. CFRP anchors had a higher tensile capacity and lower creep displacement than AFRP anchors. All the tested CFRP monorod and FRP multirod anchors with a 1,000-mm fixed length appeared to have an acceptable tensile behavior according to existing codes. Creep behavior appeared to control the long-term tensile capacity of prestressed FRP ground anchors. The recommended working load for prestressed FRP ground anchors is 0.40fpu for AFRP rods and 0.50fpu for CFRP rods, where fpu is the ultimate load or strength of anchor tendons.
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.
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 it