Testing A Full-Scale Reinforced Concrete Bridge Deck with GFRP and Steel Reinforcement Using Cyclic Pulsating and Rolling Loads
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The repair and replacement of bridge decks represents a large portion of infrastructure spending. Gaining a better understanding of bridge deck behaviour through more representative vehicular loading can lead to a reduction in the costs, time and environmental impacts associated with construction. Past studies have most often used fixed pulsating loads to represent cyclic loading on a bridge deck. However, it has been shown that these types of loading do not induce the most critical conditions when compared with moving loads. This thesis is the first part of a long-term study intended to compare the loading effects of fixed pulsating cyclic loads against moving wheel loads, up to 3000 load cycles. The study also compares different types of deck reinforcement and construction methods, namely conventional steel reinforcing bar, glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) rebar and GFRP stay-in-place (SIP) structural forms for rapid construction. A slab-on-girder reinforced concrete bridge deck with dimensions of 15.24 m x 3.89 m x 210 mm and a girder spacing of 3.05 m was designed according to the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) and constructed in the laboratory. Detailing and construction procedures have also been proposed for the new GFRP SIP structural form system. The deck was conceptually divided into four sections but all were monolithically cast. Sections 1 and 4, at either ends of the deck, were identical and reinforced with GFRP bars, Section 2 incorporated the novel GFRP SIP form system and Section 3 was reinforced with conventional steel rebar. Section 1 was subjected to pulsating loads and Sections 2-4 were subjected to moving wheel loads. Monotonic load tests were performed at various cycling intervals to establish stiffness degradation. After 3000 load cycles, the maximum values of reinforcement and concrete strain were well within their ultimate limits, signifying the deck was not at risk of failure. Section 4 experienced a larger reduction in stiffness than Section 1, suggesting that the moving loads were more damaging than the pulsating loads. It is important to note that observations could change at higher levels of cyclic loading, which is beyond the scope of this thesis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle