MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977486637 · doi:10.1117/12.663987

Structural health monitoring of the Gr ndals Bridge in Sweden: the behaviour of CFRP strengthening in cold temperature

2006· article· en· W1977486637 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arvid Hejll, Björn Täljsten, Anders Carolin

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Structural health monitoringSpan (engineering)Prestressed concreteStructural engineeringGirderForensic engineeringCrackingCivil engineeringStructural integrityEngineeringComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To obtain a better knowledge of existing structures behaviour monitoring can be used. The use of monitoring in bridge structures by the use of instruments to assess the integrity of structures is not new and there are reports from structures tested as early as in the 19th century according to ISIS Canada<sup>1</sup> However, the term SHM (Structural Health Monitoring) is relatively new to civil engineering and the driving force to implement SHM comes from recognising the limitations of conventional visual inspections and evaluations using conservative codes of practice. The possibilities to monitor existing structures with help of the rapidly evolving Information Technology are to day carried out. The objective of SHM is to monitor the in-situ behaviour of a structure accurately and efficiently, to assess its performance under various service conditions, to detect damage or deterioration, and to determine the health or condition of the structure1. In Sweden strengthening and periodic monitoring of a large freivorbau bridge (pre-stresed concrete box girder bridge) has been carried out, the Gr&diaero;ndals Bridge. The bridge is located in Stockholm and is approximately 400 m in length with a free span of 120 m. It was opened to tram traffic in year 2000. Just after opening cracks were noticed in the webs, these cracks have then increased, the size of the largest cracks exceeded 0.5 mm, and at the end of year 2001 the bridge was temporarily strengthened. This was carried out with externally placed prestressed steel stays. The reason for cracking is quite clear but the responsibility is still debated. Nevertheless, it was evidently that the bridge needed to be strengthened. The strengthening methods used were CFRP plates in the Service Limit State (SLS) and prestressed dywidag stays in the Ultimate Limit State (ULS). The strengthening was carried out during year 2002. At the same time monitoring of the bridge commenced, using LVDT crack gauges as well as optical fibre sensors. This monitoring was carried out during the summer period. In addition to this a winter monitoring was carried out in the beginning of 2005. This paper presents the background to strengthening and a comparison between summer and winter monitoring where the strengthening behaviour between the two seasons is enlightened. The result from the monitoring is very interesting; it would have been preferable to strengthen the bridge during the winter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207