Testing of concrete bridge barriers reinforced with new glass FRP bars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract : This article presents the results of a pendulum impact test carried out on full-scale types PL-2 and PL-3 concrete bridge barriers reinforced with a new type of glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars. For comparison purpose, the test was similar to other tests carried out in 2001 at University of Sherbrooke (Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada) on similar barriers reinforced with an old type of GFRP or steel bars. A total of two full-scale 10-m-long barrier prototypes were constructed and tested. The tests included one PL-2 and one PL-3 prototypes. Pendulum crash tests using a 3.0-t pear-shaped iron ball were performed for the two barriers. 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 the concrete bridge barriers reinforced with the new GFRP bars is similar to their counterparts reinforced with the old GFRP bars or conventional steel.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".