MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Inhibiting Distortion-Induced Fatigue Damage in Steel Girders by Using FRP Angles

2014· article· en· W2003697395 on OpenAlexafffund
Kasra Ghahremani, Scott Walbridge, Tim Topper

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bridge Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersMinistère des Transports
KeywordsGirderFlangeRetrofittingStructural engineeringFibre-reinforced plasticDeckFinite element methodWeldingStress (linguistics)Distortion (music)Materials scienceBridge (graph theory)EngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The idea of retrofitting web stiffener ends in steel bridge girders susceptible to distortion-induced fatigue using adhesively bonded fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) angles is introduced in this study. The proposed retrofit method is relatively cheap and easy to use and does not require deck removal or any other severe modification to the steel girder. Fatigue tests were conducted on specimens designed to model the conditions in the region between a web stiffener and a flange in a steel girder bridge. Fatigue life increases on the order of several hundred percent were achieved by implementing the proposed retrofit. The effect of the retrofit on the hot-spot stress in the critical weld detail can be seen in the experimental strain data and in a subsequent finite-element (FE) analysis of the tested specimen geometry. Further research is recommended to assess the performance of the retrofit on full-scale girders and to develop guidelines for fatigue verification and design of the FRP angle and adhesive. However, the presented research shows the potential of the proposed retrofit and the suitability of the hot-spot stress method for predicting its effectiveness.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bridge EngineeringSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207