Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jointed concrete pavements require dowels to transfer the loads across transverse joints and to prevent faulting. The most commonly used dowels are made of epoxy-coated steel with a diameter ranging from 25 to 38 mm. Problems associated with dowels include corrosion of the dowel material and possible crushing of concrete surrounding the dowel causing looseness of the joint and faulting. The objective of this research is to evaluate corrosion-free alternatives to steel reinforcing elements. The use of Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymers, GFRP, as load transfer devices is investigated and some material characteristics and design guidelines for GFRP dowels are introduced. In the experimental program, two types of dowel construction are tested. The first type is a round GFRP dowel bar having a 38-mm diameter and the second is a concrete-filled GFRP pipe having a 60-mm outside diameter. Laboratory testing and a field implementation project were carried out. The field test section was constructed on a regional highway in the city of Winnipeg and involved three types of GFRP dowels in addition to epoxy-coated steel. Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing was conducted after one year of service and showed that GFRP dowels produced 30% higher deflections compared to steel, however the load transfer efficiencies for GFRP dowels remained excellent. The use of GFRP dowels opens tremendous opportunities for optimizing dowel design and pavement performance. The increased diameter and reduced stiffness of the GFRP dowels results in lower bearing stresses between the concrete and dowel, which are major causes of dowel looseness and slab faulting.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".