Experimental and Analytical Evaluation of GFRP-Reinforced Concrete Bridge Barriers at the Deck–Wall Interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the structural performance of TL-5 concrete bridge barriers reinforced with glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars at the critical deck–wall interface. Five full-scale barrier models were subjected to static load testing until failure. The wall reinforcement included four barriers with high- and standard-modulus GFRP bars using headed-end, bent, and hooked anchorage, and one with conventional steel reinforcement. The objective was to assess the load-bearing capacity, failure modes, and deformation behavior of GFRP-reinforced barriers with respect to the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) requirements. Results revealed that all GFRP-reinforced models achieved ultimate flexural capacities surpassing CHBDC design limits, with diagonal tension cracking at the corner joint emerging as the predominant failure mode. A set of new equations was developed to predict diagonal tension failure and determine minimum reinforcement ratios to mitigate such failure. Comparisons with experimental findings validated the proposed analytical approach. Among the configurations tested, barriers with headed-end high-modulus GFRP bars offered the most cost-effective and structurally sound solution. These findings support the incorporation of GFRP bars in bridge barrier design and establish a framework for future code development regarding GFRP-reinforced barrier systems.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".