MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392807201 · doi:10.3390/jcs8030103

Innovative Wedge Anchorage for CFRP Plates: Development and Testing

2024· article· en· W4392807201 on OpenAlexaff
Mustafa Alhusain, Adil Al‐Mayah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersKing Faisal University
KeywordsWedge (geometry)Development (topology)Structural engineeringMaterials scienceForensic engineeringEngineeringGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gripping prestressed carbon fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRPs) in structural strengthening applications is challenging due to CFRPs’ susceptibility to lateral loading. This paper presents a reliable and reusable wedge anchorage for gripping CFRP plates that are 50 mm wide and 1.2 mm thick. The cylindrical anchorage, which is 75 mm long and 76.2 mm in diameter, consists of an external steel barrel, two internal steel wedges, and two soft copper sleeves. The barrel-wedge interface is designed using an innovative arc–linear configuration, through which the desired stress distribution is attained, preventing stress concentration and the premature failure of the CFRP plate. The wedge anchorage was experimentally tested by applying a displacement-controlled tensile load of 0.6 mm/min until the complete fracture of the CFRP plate. The anchorage’s performance was examined under distinct installation conditions by applying different presetting levels: high (40–120 kN) and low (hammering) presetting. It was observed that the anchorage successfully prevented CFRP premature failure in all tests by achieving an average tensile loading of 172.3 (±5.7) kN, exceeding its reported tensile strength of 168 kN (2800 MPa). Minor CFRP displacements of 6.26 (±0.75) mm and 3.33 (±0.16) mm were recorded under low and high presetting levels, respectively. Similarly, the CFRP slippage relative to the wedges for the low and high presetting tests was only 1.18 (±0.75) mm and 0.33 (±0.15) mm, respectively. Also, only minor scratches were observed in the wedge–barrel interface, indicating the absence of extensive plastic deformation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites ScienceSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207