MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973431466 · doi:10.1061/41130(369)45

Distortion-Induced Fatigue Cracking of Bridge Girders—Design Issues

2010· article· en· W1973431466 on OpenAlexafffund
Gilbert Y. Grondin, Geoffrey L. Kulak

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2010 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStructural engineeringGirderFlangeEngineeringFinite element methodBridge (graph theory)BrittlenessMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distortion-induced fatigue cracks are common occurrences in older bridges where details were used that are now known to be fatigue prone. These details generally consist of transverse stiffeners cut short of the girder flange to which a diaphragm or cross bracing is connected. The issues related to the assessment of existing bridge with this poor fatigue detail include the evaluation of the remaining fatigue life, the susceptibility of the damaged girders to brittle fracture as the fatigue crack grows, and the repair of these fatigue cracks. A study that included both experimental work and numerical analysis was conducted to assess an existing railway bridge in which over 300 cracks had been detected before it was replaced. The experimental work, which included both field measurements on the bridge before it was taken down and controlled laboratory fatigue tests, was conducted to assess the behavior of the bridge in-situ and the behavior of the web gap. The results of the field work were used to design the laboratory experiment to replicate the field conditions. Finite element analyses provided useful information for the design of the laboratory test program and to evaluate the fatigue susceptibility of web gaps in steel plate girders. Extensive analysis of web gap areas was used to validate simple procedures for the calculation of web gap stresses. This paper presents the results of this analysis and presents an assessment of commonly used web gap stress calculation method.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2010Same topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207