Tensile Behavior of FRP Tendons for Prestressed Ground Anchors
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".