Flexural Fatigue Performance of CFRP Prestressed Concrete Poles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) prestressed concrete poles offer a durable, light-weight alternative to conventional steel-reinforced or prestressed concrete poles. In particular, the corrosion resistance of the CFRP tendons can result in lower maintenance costs and a reduction in the required concrete cover. For lighting poles used in pedestrian or low-trafficked areas, wind loading represents a dominant load case. The wind acts as a transient force and can blow from any direction. It is therefore of interest to investigate how CFRP prestressed lighting poles perform under repeated cyclic loads and/or load reversals. Experiments were carried out on pole sections tested horizontally. These included a static control test and a conventional fatigue test where a cyclic load was applied in a downwards direction for 2 million cycles. Three further fatigue tests where the load direction changed, either after a defined number of cycles or within a load cycle, were also conducted. It was found that all the poles performed adequately for 1–2 million cycles of loading and that the majority of any deflection increases occurred within the first 50,000 cycles. It is believed that repeated cyclic loading may have increased the tendon debonding at the crack locations. Localised debonding potentially relieves the stress in the outermost tendon layer which delays the onset of failure and allows the inner tendon layers to take up further stress thus leading to a higher load carrying capacity. Loading orientation reversal from a downwards to an upwards direction within a loading cycle did not result in a greater stiffness degradation when compared to the other fatigue tests. The initial findings suggest that in-service cyclic loading and load reversals will not be detrimental to the performance of CFRP prestressed concrete poles.
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 | 0.001 | 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".