Experimental Load Carrying Capacity of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (FRC) TL-5 Concrete Barriers Subjected to Equivalent Vehicle Impact Loading at End Location
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the repair and maintenance of concrete bridge barriers are becoming important issues in bridge engineering, a sustainable and cost-effective design of concrete bridge barriers is more significant.Recent investigations have recommended the use of fibers in structural concrete elements, while there have been limited experimental studies on the practicality and efficiency of implementing fibers in concrete bridge barriers to conclude a safe and economical design to be added to design specifications and standards.In this research, the design of Test Level 5 (TL-5) concrete bridge barriers, as identified in the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC), is modified by adding synthetic macro-fibers to the wall concrete and removing one mesh of conventional reinforcement at the back side to be cast and tested experimentally.The 5-m length Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (FRC) barrier was tested at the end location, and initially, two arrangements of conventional reinforcement were considered using stainless-steel rebars while back mesh reinforcement was removed; the first sample with no rebars at the back, and a second sample with two top horizontal rebars.However, the design of the second sample was adjusted based on the results of the first sample, as discussed in this research.The studies presented in this paper include details on the design, construction, test setup and results of the two FRC barriers cast and tested at the end location.While the results show an acceptable wall capacity with using FRC and removal of the back mesh of reinforcement, the effect of proper reinforcement at the barrier-deck junction was observed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".