Investigation on the capacity of TL-5 GFRP-reinforced concrete bridge barrier-deck anchorage subjected to transverse vehicle impact loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new Ontario-based glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bar manufacturer developed high-modulus (HM) GFRP bars with headed ends for use in bridge construction. This thesis presents a structural qualification procedure to qualify the use of the developed GFRP bars in concrete bridge barriers-deck joint. The thesis is comprised of two phases. The first phase includes an experimental program to investigate the pullout capacity of the GFRP bar anchorage in normal strength concrete. In phase two, three sets of full-scale TL-5 barrier wall-deck system of 900 mm length were cast and tested to-collapse. The first set incorporated headed-end GFRP bars to connect the barrier wall to a deck slab cantilever for better pre-installed anchorage. The second set is identical to the first set but for non-deformable thick deck slab. The third set incorporated post-installed GFRP bars in non-deformable thick deck slab using a commercial epoxy adhesive. Experimental capacities of the tested specimen were then correlated with factored applied moments given by the 2006 Commentaries of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code and available equations in the literature. Based on the experimental findings, conclusions and recommendations were drawn.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".