MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044819906 · doi:10.1139/l05-058

Large model test of prestressed carbon fibre reinforced polymer ground anchors

2005· article· en· W2044819906 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Burong Zhang, Brahim Benmokrane

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStructural engineeringServiceability (structure)Strain gaugeFibre-reinforced plasticMortarGroutSteel barMaterials scienceRebarUltimate tensile strengthUltimate loadPrestressed concreteGeotechnical engineeringCarbon fiber reinforced polymerComposite materialEngineeringFinite element methodReinforced concrete

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a full-scale prestressed ground anchor model test with carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) 9-bar tendons. The main objectives of this laboratory study were to evaluate the serviceability of the developed bond-type anchorage for post-tensioning applications with CFRP multibar tendons and to study load transfer mechanism of CFRP multibar tendons to surrounding rock mass. A cement-based mortar-filled steel tube was used to simulate a rock mass environment. Extensive instrumentation including resistance strain gauges, fibre optic sensors, embedded strain gauges, and linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) were used to monitor the behaviour of the anchor. The test results show that the tested CFRP 9-bar anchor presents an acceptable tensile behaviour under a load of 0.6f pu in accordance with existing codes. The CFRP multibar anchor presents a similar strain distribution profile as that for conventional steel anchors, except giving a shorter load transfer length. It is expected that CFRP 9-bar anchors require a minimum anchor bonded length of 2000 mm with plain cement grouts.Key words: anchor, anchorage, FRP, tendon, slip.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207