Structural Behavior of Novel Precast TL-5 Bridge Barriers Using Ultrahigh-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concretes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental testing and numerical modeling were performed on novel precast TL-5 barriers subjected to centered and eccentric loadings in a quasi-static mode. The mechanical behavior of two precast barrier configurations was analyzed and compared: a hybrid barrier including a normal strength concrete (NSC) core and a ultrahigh performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) shell with a UHPFRC barrier–slab connection, and a precast version of a cast-in-place QMT301 barrier made of NSC with a UHPFRC barrier–slab connection. Laboratory experiments on 2-m precast barriers under eccentric loading applied on 0.7 m demonstrated a shear failure in the upper portion of the hybrid and QMT barriers while the UHPFRC connection recess remained elastic, as observed in the cast-in-place solution. The longitudinal connection between precast barriers increased the maximal capacity under eccentric loading at the connected end. Numerical models were carried out on 2–6 -m precast barriers, under centered and eccentric loading, with 0.7 and 2.4 m loading lengths. Models showed the critical effects of shorter barrier length (2 m), shorter loading length (0.7), and eccentric loading as these factors significantly reduce the ultimate capacity of the precast barrier. Models validated with experiments confirmed that the load-carrying capacities of the developed precast TL-5 hybrid and QMT301 barriers surpass the minimum CSA and AASHTO design load requirements when considering 4-m barrier modules loaded on 2.4 m, whether or not there is a longitudinal connection and whether the loading is centered or eccentric.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".