Experimental Investigation Of The Impact Performance Of Bridge Traffic Barriers Made Of Rubberized Fiber-Reinforced Concrete And Stainless Steel Bars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Similar to steel-reinforced concrete structures, traditional concrete bridge barriers reinforced with steel bars suffer a common problem which is the corrosion of steel reinforcement and related deteriorations which shorten their service life.The maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of existing bridge barriers suffering from steel corrosion are very costly.This paper proposes durable and crash-worthy rubberized fiber-reinforced concrete (RuFRC) bridge barriers incorporating synthetic macro-structural fibers made of recycled plastics and waste tyre rubber shreds and reinforced with stainless steel reinforcement bars to improve corrosion resistance.This study reports a series of tests carried out on the impact performance of the proposed crash barriers using pendulum tests replicating the vehicle impact load scenarios.The bridge barriers were made of 1% macro-synthetic fibers whereas the rubber shreds were used to replace coarse aggregate by 12%, 18%, 24% and 30%.The effects of various rubber percentages and the impact speed on the impact performance of the proposed bridge barriers are examined.It is found that increasing rubber percentages increases the displacement of the barriers, with a maximum 80% increase in the displacement observed in comparison to the control specimen when 24% rubber is used.The energy absorption capacity of the RuFRC barriers is found to be higher than the conventional control bridge barrier.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".