Influence of Reinforcement on the Behavior of Concrete Bridge Deck Slabs Reinforced with FRP Bars
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
This paper presents the results of an experimental study to investigate the role of each layer of reinforcement on the behavior of concrete bridge deck slabs reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars. Four full-scale concrete deck slabs of 3,000mm length by 2,500mm width and 200mm depth were constructed and tested in the laboratory. One deck slab was reinforced with top and bottom mats of glass FRP bars. Two deck slabs had only a bottom reinforcement mat with different reinforcement ratios in the longitudinal direction, while the remaining deck slab was constructed with plain concrete without any reinforcement. The deck slabs were supported on two steel girders spaced at 2,000mm center to center and were tested to failure under a central concentrated load. The three reinforced concrete slabs had very similar behavior and failed in punching shear mode at relatively high load levels, whereas the unreinforced slab behaved differently and failed at a very low load level. The experimental punching capacities of the reinforced slabs were compared to the theoretical predictions provided by ACI 318-05, ACI 440.1R-06, and a model proposed by the writers. The tests on the four deck slabs showed that the bottom transverse reinforcement layer has the major influence on the behavior and capacity of the tested slabs. In addition, the ACI 318-05 design method slightly overestimated the punching shear strength of the tested slabs. The ACI 440.1R-06 design method yielded very conservative predictions whereas the proposed method provided reasonable yet conservative predictions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it