GFRP Bars Anchorage Resistance in a GFRP-Reinforced Concrete Bridge Barrier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present paper, experimental and numerical investigations were conducted on concrete bridge barriers utilizing glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars with a hook at their ends. Implementation of these hooked bars instead of the bent bars or headed-end bars in the bridge barriers presented in the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) was investigated on American Association for State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) test level 5 (TL-5) concrete bridge barriers. This research aimed to reach a cost effective and safe anchorage method for GFRP bars at the barrier–deck junction, compared to the conventional bend bars or headed-end bars. Therefore, an experimental program was developed and performed to qualify the use of the recently-developed, small radius hooked bars at the barrier–deck junction. The experimental findings were compared with the design factored applied transverse load specified in CHBDC for the design of the barrier–deck junction as well as factored applied bending moment obtained at the barrier–deck junction using a recently-conducted finite-element modeling. Satisfactory behavior for the developed hooked GFRP bars as well as their anchorage resistance was established and a reasonable factor of safety in design of barrier–deck joint was achieved.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".