Experimental investigation of the role of reinforcement in the strength of concrete deck slabs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To study systematically the role of each layer of steel reinforcement in conventionally reinforced deck slabs of girder bridges, a full-scale model was built of a 175 mm thick concrete deck slab on two steel girders with a center-to-center spacing of 2.0 m. The 12 m long deck slab was conceptually divided into four 3 m long segments, identified as segments A, B, C, and D. Segment A contained isotropic steel reinforcement in two layers, conforming to the requirements of the Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (OHBDC). Segment B contained only the bottom layer of steel reinforcement. Segment C contained only the bottom transverse steel bars. Segment D contained only bottom transverse glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars having the same axial stiffness, but 8.6 times the axial tensile strength, as those of the steel bars in segment C. Each segment of the deck slab was tested to failure under a central concentrated load, simulating the dual tire footprint of 250 × 500 mm dimension of a typical commercial vehicle. All segments failed in the punching shear mode. The failure loads for the four segments were found to be 808, 792, 882, and 756 kN, respectively; these failure loads are similar in magnitude to that of a 175 mm thick steel-free deck slab with steel straps having nearly the same cross-sectional area per metre length of the slab as those of the bottom transverse steel bars in the first three segments. The tests on the four segments of the full-scale model have confirmed that (i) only the bottom transverse reinforcement influences the load carrying capacity of a reinforced concrete deck slab and (ii) the stiffness of the bottom transverse reinforcement, rather than its strength, is of paramount importance.Key words: arching, deck slab, FRP, shake down, slab-on-girder bridge.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".