Mechanical Behavior of CFRP Rod Anchors under Tensile Loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of an experimental and numerical study to examine the mechanical behavior of carbon fiber reinforced polymer rods gripped by a wedge anchor, comprised of an aluminum sleeve, four stainless steel wedges, and a stainless steel barrel. The carbon fiber reinforced polymer rod-anchor system was tested under monotonic and cyclic loading conditions. In the static load tests, the effect of presetting loads, usage history, and sleeve material were investigated. Presetting load levels of 50, 65, 80, and 100 kN were used, and tests were conducted with new and reused anchors. Aluminum and copper sleeves were considered. As the presetting load increased, the displacement (or slip) of the rod and sleeve decreased. No significant effect of reusing the anchor was found other than replacing the sleeve. Anchors with copper sleeves performed poorly at low presetting loads, in comparison to aluminum sleeves. Cyclic load tests were conducted on anchors using aluminum sleeves with a presetting load of 80 kN. The effects of cycling on the rod and sleeve displacement were minor for different mean stresses and stress ratios. A finite-element model, consisting of three contact surfaces, was applied to simulate the anchor components; the displacement of the rod compared well with 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".