Pendulum impacts into concrete bridge barriers reinforced with glass fibre reinforced polymer composite 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 a pendulum impact test that was carried out on full-scale types PL-2 and PL-3 concrete bridge barriers reinforced with glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars. A new corrosion-free connection between the barrier wall and the slab using GFRP bent bars was investigated. For comparison purposes, the impact test was also performed on identical concrete barriers reinforced with conventional steel. A total of eight full-scale 10-m-long barrier prototypes were constructed and tested. The tests included four PL-2 and four PL-3 prototypes. For each type of barrier, two prototypes were reinforced with GFRP sand-coated bars and the other two were reinforced with steel bars. Pendulum crash tests using a 3.0-t pear-shaped iron ball were performed under the same conditions for each type of barrier. The behaviour of the barriers was evaluated in terms of cracking pattern, crack width, and strains in reinforcing bars. The results of this investigation led to the conclusion that the behaviour of PL-2 and PL-3 concrete bridge barriers reinforced with GFRP bars is very similar to that of their counterparts reinforced with conventional steel in terms of cracking, energy absorption, and strength.Key words: concrete bridges, bridge barriers, glass FRP bars, impact, pendulum crash test.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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