MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101237829 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2013-0393

Development of cost-effective PL-3 concrete bridge barrier reinforced with sand-coated glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars: vehicle crash test

2014· article· en· W2101237829 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation Safety and Impact Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersPultrall
KeywordsFibre-reinforced plasticStructural engineeringCrashBridge (graph theory)Materials scienceCrash testGlass fiberComposite materialEngineeringForensic engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corrosion of steel reinforcement due to environmental effects is a major cause of deterioration problems in bridge barriers. Glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars, as a suitable alternative, addresses the corrosion-related problems of steel reinforcing bars. Recent research work conducted at Ryerson University on PL-3 bridge barrier proposed a cost-effective barrier configuration incorporating high-modulus GFRP bars with headed ends. To qualify the developed barrier configuration for use in bridge construction, a full-scale PL-3 barrier wall of 27.6 m length was constructed to perform vehicle crash testing. The crash test was performed in accordance with MASH Test Level 5 (TL-5). Evaluation criteria for full-scale vehicle crash testing were based on three appraisal areas namely: (i) structural adequacy; (ii) occupant risk; and (iii) vehicle trajectory after collision. Crash test results showed that the barrier contained and redirected the vehicle. The vehicle did not penetrate or override the parapet. No detached elements, fragments, or other debris from the barrier were present to penetrate or show potential for penetrating the occupant compartment, or to present undue hazard to others in the area. No occupant compartment deformation occurred. The test vehicle remained upright during and after the collision event. Estimates of the equivalent impact force and associated energy absorbed by the barrier wall due to vehicle impact were deduced.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it