Ultimate capacity of barrier–deck anchorage in MTQ TL-5 barrier reinforced with headed-end, high-modulus, sand-coated GFRP 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 an experimental program to justify the barrier design at the barrier–deck junction when compared to the factored applied transverse vehicular loading specified in the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). Compared to the dimensioning and the glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) bar detailing of a recently crash-tested GFRP-reinforced barrier, the adopted barrier configurations in this paper were similar to those specified by Ministry of Transportation of Québec (MTQ) for TL-5 barrier except that the base of the barrier was 40 mm narrower and the deck slab is of 200 mm thickness, leading to reduction in the GFRP embedment depth into the deck slab. Four full-scale TL-5 barrier specimens were tested to collapse. Correlation between the experimental findings and the factored applied moments from CHBDC equivalent vehicle impact forces resulting from the finite-element modelling of the barrier–deck system was conducted followed by recommendations for use of the proposed design in highway bridges in Québec.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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