Evaluation of fibre-reinforced polymer post-tensioned slab bridges using the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corrosion of steel reinforcement is a major concern for bridges throughout Canada, particularly where deicing salts are used. Fibre-reinforced polymers (FRPs) are not susceptible to corrosion, making them an attractive alternative to internal steel reinforcement for Canadian bridges. Due to the low stiffness of FRP materials, concrete members tend to have high deflections and large crack widths at service loads with serviceability limits governing their design. In addition, they tend to have lower shear capacities compared to similar steel-reinforced members. This study focuses on glass FRP (GFRP) reinforced slab strips cast with self-consolidating concrete (SCC) and post-tensioned with carbon FRP (CFRP) tendons to improve their serviceability, shear capacity, and deformability. The experimental results highlight the potential of an FRP reinforcement system for slab bridges combining passive GFRP reinforcement with prestressed CFRP tendons. The flexural performance of five FRP-reinforced slabs and one steel-reinforced control slab are compared to the design provisions of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".