Glass FRP Composite Bars for Concrete Bridge Barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The expansion of highway systems increased the need to provide corrosion-free reinforced concrete components for highway bridges.An extensive research program to investigate the behaviour of two types of concrete bridge barriers, PL-2 and PL-3, reinforced with glass fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) bars has been going during the last four years at the Universite de Sherbrooke (Sherbrooke, Quebec) in collaboration with the Ministry of Transportation of Quebec (MTQ).A new corrosion-free connection between the barrier wall and the slab using GFRP bent bars was investigated.A total of 8 full-scale 10-m long barrier prototypes were constructed and tested in the field under impact load..The tests included 4 PL-2 and 4 PL-3 prototypes.For each type of barriers, 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-ton pear-shaped iron ball were performed under the same conditions for each type of barriers.The behaviour of the barriers was evaluated in terms of cracking pattern, crack width, and strains in reinforcing bars.Based on the results of this investigation, it is concluded that the behaviour of PL-2 and PL-3 concrete bridge barriers reinforced with GFRP bars is similar to their counterparts reinforced with conventional steel in terms of cracking, energy absorption, and strength.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".