MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Behavior of Corrugated Web I-Girders under In-Plane Loads

2006· article· en· W2002175946 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Abbas, Richard Sause, Robert G. Driver

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Mechanics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersLehigh UniversityPennsylvania Department of Transportation
KeywordsGirderStructural engineeringFlangeStress resultantsBending momentFinite element methodEngineeringShear (geology)BendingPlane (geometry)Beam (structure)Materials scienceComposite materialMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A theoretical formulation of the linear elastic in-plane and torsional behavior of corrugated web I-girders under in-plane loads is presented. A typical corrugated web steel I-girder consists of two steel flanges welded to a corrugated steel web. Under a set of simplifying assumptions, the equilibrium of an infinitesimal length of a corrugated web I-girder is studied, and the cross-sectional stresses and stress resultants due to primary bending moment and shear are deduced. The analysis shows that a corrugated web I-girder will twist out-of-plane simultaneously as it deflects in-plane under the action of in-plane loads. In the paper, the in-plane bending behavior is analyzed using conventional beam theory, whereas the out-of-plane torsional behavior is analyzed as a flange transverse bending problem. The results for a simply supported span subjected to a uniformly distributed load are presented. Finally, finite element analysis results are presented and compared to the theoretical results for validation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations132
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering MechanicsSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207