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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".