Fatigue Behavior of Concrete Bridge Decks Cast on GFRP Stay-in-Place Structural Forms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fatigue performance of concrete bridge decks with glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) stay-in-place structural forms replacing the bottom layer of rebar is studied. The forms were either flat plate with T-up ribs joined using lap splices or corrugated forms joined through pin-and-eye connections. The decks were supported by simulated precast girders, AASHTO Type III, spaced at 1,775 mm. Two surface preparations were examined for each GFRP form, either using adhesive coating that bonds to freshly cast concrete, or just cleaning the surface before casting. For the bonded deck with flat-ribbed forms, adhesive bond and mechanical fasteners were used at the lap splice, whereas lap splice of the unbonded deck had no adhesive or mechanical fasteners. All decks survived 3 million cycles at 123 kN service load of the CL625 design truck of the Canadian standard. The bonded flat-ribbed-form deck further survived additional 2 million cycles at a higher load simulating a larger girder spacing of 2,365 mm. Stiffness degradations were 9–33% with more reduction in unbonded specimens. Nonetheless, live load deflections of all specimens remained below span/1,600. The residual ultimate strengths after fatigue were reduced by 5% and 27% for the flat-ribbed and corrugated forms, respectively. However, these strengths remain 7 and 3 times higher than service load, respectively. Both the lap-splice and pin-and-eye connection survived fatigue. Concrete crack width at the top surface over the girders remained below the AASHTO limit of 0.3 mm.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".