ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Analysis of Four Types of Anchorage Devices for Prestressed Glulam Beam and Experimental Research.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experimental Study on Flexural Behaviour of Diagonally Notched Wooden Beams Strengthened with Prestressed Superelastic SMA Wires.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ultimate Shear Force of an Any Anchor Group Post-Installed into Concrete.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
An anchorage device is an integral part of the prestressed Glulam beams. Therefore, its rationality and practicability have significant effects on the mechanical performance of the prestressed beams. To investigate the impact of the anchorage devices on the bearing capacity and stiffness of the prestressed beams, this paper compared and analyzed four kinds of anchors in detail through the finite element software. The results showed that when the initial mid-span deflection was 5 mm, 10 mm, and 15 mm, the bearing capacity of prestressed beams with four anchorage devices was 80.37-177.24%, 93.56-182.51%, and 95.62-194.60% higher than that of ordinary Glulam beam, respectively. When the initial mid-span top prestresses were 1 MPa, 1.5 MPa, and 2 MPa, the bearing capacity of prestressed beams with four anchorage devices was 101.71-172.57%, 105.85-175.88%, and 109.64-180.87% higher than that of ordinary Glulam beam, respectively. In addition, based on the simulation results, the prestressed beam with the external anchorage had the highest bearing capacity and stiffness. The deformation capacity of the beam with boot anchorage was the largest. The stress distribution of the beam installed under beam anchorage was the most uniform, and the beam with slotted anchorage was easy to cause stress concentration at the notch. Finally, based on the outstanding performance of the external anchorage, it was selected to carry out one experiment, and the experimental result showed that the simulation could predict the damage model and load-deflection relationship of the prestressed beams well.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.