Concrete bridge barriers reinforced with glass fibre-reinforced polymer: static tests and pendulum impacts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The behaviour of concrete bridge barriers reinforced with glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars has been investigated at the University of Sherbrooke in collaboration with the Ministry of Transportation of Quebec (MTQ) through a two-phase research project. This paper presents the test results of MTQ Type 311 barrier prototypes under static (Phase I) and pendulum impact (Phase II) loading conditions. The test program included two full-scale 2.6 m long barrier prototypes for laboratory testing under static loads (Phase I) and four full-scale 11 m long barrier prototypes for field impact tests (Phase II). The laboratory static tests included one prototype totally reinforced with GFRP bars and one totally reinforced with steel bars for comparison, whereas the pendulum impact tests included two replicas totally reinforced with GFRP bars and another two totally reinforced with conventional steel bars. The barrier walls of the six prototypes were provided with the same reinforcement amount of GFRP and steel bars (No. 20 GFRP @ 200 mm and 20M steel bars @ 200 mm). The performance of the GFRP-reinforced concrete (GFRP-RC) barriers was evaluated and compared with that of their steel-RC counterparts. The results of this investigation revealed that the behaviour of the GFRP-RC concrete bridge barriers of MTQ Type 311 is similar to their steel-RC counterparts.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it