Splices of FRP Stay-in-Place Structural Forms in Concrete Bridge Decks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experimental study focuses on the design and spacing of splices of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) stay-in-place structural forms used in concrete bridge decks. The ribbed FRP panels, which span the gap between girders, are typically of limited width, and therefore are spliced by overlapping. A total of 23 auxiliary lap splice tension tests addressed various bond systems including adhesive and/or mechanical fasteners of various diameters and spacing. Seven scaled bridge deck systems were built with FRP panels of various widths, some with bonded splices and some with no bond at all at the overlap region. The study showed that using narrow FRP plates of small width-to-deck thickness (b/t) ratio significantly reduces deck capacity when no splice bond is provided because narrow panels may force the punching shear crack to terminate at a splice, at a steeper angle, thereby reducing punching shear capacity. The deck with b/t=1.9 exhibited a 24% lower capacity than that with b/t=7.2. In bonded-splice decks, plate width has no effect on strength. Generally, ultimate failure loads ranged from 5.7 to 8.8 times the equivalent service load. For an overlap splice of a length equal to 4.3 times plate thickness, the optimal splice was by combined adhesive and fasteners of diameter equal to plate thickness, spaced at 1.8 times the overlap length. It developed 68% of plate tensile strength, whereas fasteners alone developed only 14–45% strength depending on their diameter and spacing.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".