MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deflection Creep of Pultruded Composite Sheet Piling

2004· article· en· W2015751231 on OpenAlexafffund
Yixin Shao, Jayasiri Shanmugam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCreepDeflection (physics)Materials scienceViscoelasticityComposite materialPultrusionComposite numberUltimate tensile strengthShear (geology)Structural engineeringPhysicsEngineeringClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The time-dependent creep behavior of pultruded composite sheet piling was investigated. Two panels were tested under equally spaced third point bending at a span to depth ratio of 48; one was subject to a constant load of 50% of Pmax and the other 25% of Pmax. Tensile creep, shear creep, and deflection creep were recorded over 1 year. The time-dependent tensile and shear moduli were obtained using the simplified Findley’s model, and the deflection creeps were predicted based on both Findley’s model and Timoshenko’s equation. It was found that the time exponents in Findley’s model for tensile, shear and deflection creep were of close value and could therefore be averaged to provide a viscoelastic material constant for the composite sheet piling. With the averaged viscoelastic parameters, Timoshenko’s equation resembled the Findley’s power law model for the prediction of deflection creep and agreed well with experimental results up to 1 year. Over 30 years, it is estimated that the viscoelastic tensile and shear moduli will be reduced to 68 and 36% of their respective initial values and the creep deflection will reach 50% of its static deflection.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations35
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites for ConstructionSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207