MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Response of Long-Span Box Type Soil-Steel Composite Structures during Ultimate Loading Tests

2009· article· en· W1968384313 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Esra Bayoğlu Flener

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bridge Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStiffeningStructural engineeringCrown (dentistry)CulvertStructural loadStiffnessSpan (engineering)Geotechnical engineeringComposite numberEngineeringUltimate loadCover (algebra)Materials scienceFinite element methodComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil-steel composite structures are getting more popular in recent years. With the introduction of more sophisticated structures such as box culverts with flexural stiffeners, the review of largely experience based design models became inevitable. The paper presents the ultimate loading part of full-scale testing conducted on corrugated steel box culverts. Structures with two different spans of 14 and 8 m and different crown stiffness were investigated using different cover depths. The tests indicate that the response of the structure to the depth of the cover is not linear. The structures become more vulnerable to applied loads as the soil cover decreases. The increase in the load-bearing capacity with increasing soil covers is linear, which agrees with the theoretical models. The crown stiffening, however, is more effective under shallow soil covers. The load resistance of the structures is doubled at the crown level with the crown stiffening. The Swedish design method overestimates live load moments but underestimates live load thrusts. An adjustment to the calculation of the thrusts is proposed. The Canadian design method estimates the moments relatively well but it does not cover larger spans than 8 m.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations34
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bridge EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207