Fatigue and Ultimate Strength Evaluation of GFRP-Reinforced, Laterally-Restrained, Full-Depth Precast Deck Panels with Developed UHPFRC-Filled Transverse Closure Strips
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A depth precast deck panel (FDDP) is one element of the prefabricated bridge element and systems (PBES) that allows for quick un-shored assembly of the bridge deck on-site as part of the accelerated bridge construction (ABC) technology. This paper investigates the structural response of full-depth precast deck panels (FDDPs) constructed with new construction materials and connection details. FDDP is cast with normal strength concrete (NSC) and reinforced with high modulus (HM) glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) ribbed bars. The panel-to-girder V-shape connections use the shear pockets to accommodate the clustering of the shear connectors. A novel transverse connection between panels has been developed, featuring three distinct female-to-female joint configurations, each with 175-mm projected GFRP bars extending from the FDDP into the closure strip, complemented by a female vertical shear key and filled with cementitious materials. The ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete (UHPFRC) was selectively used to joint-fill the 200-mm transverse joint between adjacent precast panels and the shear pockets connecting the panels to the supporting girders to ensure full shear interaction. Two actual-size FDDP specimens for each type of the three developed joints were erected to perform fatigue tests under the footprint of the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) truck wheel loading. The FDDP had a 200-mm thickness, 2500-mm width, and 2400-mm length in traffic direction; the rest was over braced steel twin girders. Two types of fatigue test were performed: incremental variable amplitude fatigue (VAF) loading and constant amplitude fatigue (CAF) loading, followed by monotonically loading the slab ultimate-to-collapse. It was observed that fatigue test results showed that the ultimate capacity of the slab under VAF loading or after 4 million cycles of CAF exceeded the factored design wheel load specified in the CHBDC. Also, the punching shear failure mode was dominant in all the tested FDDP specimens.
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 | 0.000 | 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".