MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W621428612

Design, Construction, and Monitoring of Four Innovative Concrete Bridge Decks Using Non-Corrosive FRP Composite Bars

2004· article· en· W621428612 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brahim Benmokrane, Ehab El-Salakawy, Amr El-Ragaby, G Desgagné, Thomas Lackey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGirderDeckSlabBridge (graph theory)Structural engineeringFibre-reinforced plasticEngineeringBridge deckPrestressed concreteReinforcementStrain gaugeGeotechnical engineeringForensic engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the construction details, testing, and monitoring results of four FRP reinforced concrete bridges recently constructed in North America. Three bridges, Joffre Bridge, Wotton Bridge, and Magog Bridge, are located in Quebec, Canada. While the fourth one, Morristown Bridge, is located in Vermont, USA. All four bridges are girder-type with main girders made of either steel or prestressed concrete. The main girders are simply supported over spans ranging from 26.2 to 43.0 m. The deck is a 200 to 230 mm thickness concrete slab continuous over spans of 2.30 to 3.7 m. Different types and reinforcement ratios of FRP reinforcing bars as well as conventional steel were used as reinforcement for the concrete deck slab. Furthermore, the four bridges are located on different highway categories, which means different traffic volume and environmental conditions (frequency of using de-icing salts). The bridges are well instrumented at critical locations for internal temperature and strain data collection using fibre optic sensors. These gauges are used to monitor the deck behaviour from the time of construction to several years after completion of construction. Three of the bridges were tested for service performance using standard truckloads. The construction procedure, field tests and monitoring results, under real service conditions, showed very competitive performance to concrete bridges reinforced with steel. For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD number E211395.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207