Structural GFRP Permanent Forms with T-Shape Ribs for Bridge Decks Supported by Precast Concrete Girders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new concrete bridge deck cast onto glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) stay-in-place (SIP) structural forms is studied. The forms, which replace the bottom layer of conventional rebar, are essentially flat plates with T-up ribs. They span between support girders spaced at 1,772 mm and are lap-spliced using adhesive and mechanical fasteners. Special attention was given to the detailing of monolithic connections between the deck and girders to simulate continuity. The flange of the supporting concrete girders had a rough surface finish and protruded steel stirrups and mimicked AASHTO Type III girders. Five full-scale decks were tested to (1) compare the novel system with a conventional RC deck, (2) examine the effect of eliminating a top layer of orthogonal GFRP rebar, (3) assess a practice commonly used in bridge deck tests of using simple spans resting on neoprene pads, neglecting connection to girders, and (4) examine a commercially available all-GFRP deck, using the same GFRP panels but with a top GFRP plate fastened to the T-up ribs. Four auxiliary flexural specimens were tested to examine the lap-splice. The concrete deck with GFRP SIP form showed 33% higher strength than the conventional RC deck. It also achieved a peak load 7.8 times higher than the service load plus impact. Deflection under the service load was less than span/1,600. Remarkable deformability and pseudoductility was achieved at ultimate load, beyond punching shear, because of the progressive failure of the lap-splice. The simply supported deck failed at a slightly lower strength than the monolithically cast one but had a much lower stiffness.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".