Impact of efficiency and practicality of CFRP anchor installation techniques on the performance of RC beams strengthened with CFRP sheets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utilizing fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) anchors can enhance the strength and delay the debonding of flexural FRP in strengthened reinforced concrete (RC) beams. In this study, two different techniques are used for applying carbon FRP (CFRP) spike anchors to improve the performance of RC beams strengthened with CFRP sheets. These two techniques are compared with respect to the ease of application, time spent, size of installation team, and performance. The first technique involved applying the CFRP anchors to begin with, then installing CFRP sheets by separating the fibers at the location of anchors. The second technique applied the CFRP sheets first to the beam soffit right after drilling the holes. This was followed by inserting CFRP anchors through the sheets into the prepared holes. The conclusion indicates that the second technique is easier, faster, and more practical in real-world applications. In addition, the use of distributed CFRP anchors increased the flexural capacity of the strengthened beams.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".