Steel Post-and-Beam Barrier with GFRP-Reinforced Concrete Curb and Bridge Deck Connection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the crashworthiness of prototype steel post-and-beam barriers [Ministry of Transportation of Québec (MTQ) Type 210] whose concrete curb-to-bridge deck connection is reinforced with corrosion-resistant glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP). Experimental evidence is obtained from proof tests on five full-scale barrier and overhang subassemblies. The text matrix includes three GFRP RC and two steel RC specimens. The steel RC benchmark system is currently used as specified in the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). The objective is to verify whether (1) the resistance to out-of-plane quasi-static loads and the associated transverse deflection of the GFRP RC curb and steel barrier system are comparable to those of the steel RC counterparts; (2) the transverse strength exceeds the CHBDC equivalent static load demand; and (3) failure at the curb-deck connection is attained at safe transverse loads, and premature failure at the curb-deck connection is prevented. The GFRP and steel RC systems exhibit comparable strength, with the former undergoing greater deformations. For both systems, premature brittle failure of the curb-deck connection is prevented, and the equivalent static load requirements are satisfied. A larger capacity is attained when closed GFRP stirrup connectors are used at the curb-deck connection in lieu of C-shaped stirrups. An analytical model is used to predict the lower-bound strength of the GFRP RC curb-deck connection, and relevant design implications are discussed. It is recommended that the adoption of the proposed GFRP RC design relies on conclusive evidence from crash testing to verify safety against vehicle rollover because of the greater deformations compared with steel RC systems having the same amount of reinforcement.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".