New <i>Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code</i> design provisions for fibre-reinforced structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a synthesis of the design provisions of the second edition of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) for fibre-reinforced structures. New design provisions for applications not covered by the first edition of the CHBDC and the rationale for those that remain unchanged from the first edition are given. Among the new design provisions are those for glass-fibre-reinforced polymer as both primary reinforcement and tendons in concrete; and for the rehabilitation of concrete and timber structures with externally bonded fibre-reinforced-polymer (FRP) systems or near-surface-mounted reinforcement. The provisions for fibre-reinforced concrete deck slabs in the first edition have been reorganized in the second edition to explicitly include deck slabs of both cast-in-place and precast construction and are now referred to as externally restrained deck slabs, whereas deck slabs containing internal FRP reinforcement are referred to as internally restrained deck slabs. Resistance factors in the second edition have been recast from those in the first edition and depend on the condition of use, with a further distinction made between factory- and field-produced FRP. In the second edition, the deformability requirements for FRP-reinforced and FRP-prestressed concrete beams and slabs of the first edition have been split into three subclauses covering the design for deformability, minimum flexural resistance, and crack-control reinforcement. The effect of sustained loads on the strength of FRPs is accounted for in the second edition by limits on stresses in FRP at the serviceability limit state.Key words: beams, bridges, concrete, decks, fibre-reinforced-polymer reinforcement, fibre-reinforced-polymer sheets, prestressing, repair, strengthening, wood.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.020 |
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".