On the Quantification of Robustness of Structures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper first reviews different interpretations of robustness. On this basis objectives facilitating the quantification of robustness of engineering systems are formulated. Thereafter a generic framework for risk assessments of engineering systems is presented in which robustness is related to the ability of the system to sustain damages. This framework is then applied to quantify robustness of structural systems and to develop a robustness index facilitating a consistent ranking of structures according to their robustness. The proposed approach to the assessment of robustness principally takes into account the effect of redundancy, ductility, damage and failure consequences as well as strategies for condition control and intervention during the service life of structures. Finally, a simple example illustrates the use of the framework for the assessment of the robustness of a jacket steel structure subject to fatigue damage. The example shows that presently used indicators for the robustness of jacket type steel structures such as the RIF only capture part of the picture and illustrates the merits of a risk based framework for robustness assessments.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it