Rolling Load Fatigue Experiment on a Bridge Deck Reinforced with a New Design of GFRP Stay-In-Place Form
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A full-scale deck slab (15,240 mm × 3,890 mm × 210 mm) supported by steel girders spaced at 3.05 m, including a 3,810 mm × 3,890 mm section incorporating a new design of glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) stay-in-place (SIP) structural form, is tested under 3M rolling load cycles. The SIP form comprises transverse GFRP I-beams spanning the steel girders and GFRP ribbed plates (planks) spanning the transverse GFRP I-beams and supported by their lower flanges. The design of the SIP form was governed by readily available pultruded sections such that they meet deflection limits under self-weight of fresh concrete and also provide reinforcement ratios comparable to, or exceeding, the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) requirements for GFRP rebar. This deck section is compared with another section designed according to CHBDC with top and bottom GFRP rebar meshes. The deck was tested using the 250 kN Rolling Load Simulator (ROLLS) at Queen’s University, Canada, which is equipped with two half-axles spaced at 1.2 m, each comprising nitrogen-inflated dual tires. After 3M cycles, the section with SIP structural form showed very similar performance to that of the GFRP rebar section with the stiffness reducing by 72% in both. Nearly 90% of stiffness reduction occurred in the first 0.4M cycles. The residual deflection of the SIP form section was only 60% of that of the rebar section at 3M cycles. Live load deflection ratio reached 3.4 at 3M cycles, almost identical to the rebar section. The span/800 deflection limit was reached at 0.8M cycles, compared with 1.1M cycles for the rebar section. The maximum tensile strain reached in the GFRP SIP form system after 3M cycles was only 11% of its ultimate value.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".