MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017002155 · doi:10.1061/41130(369)18

Vibration Testing of Cantilevered Steel Pole with Partial Concrete Filling

2010· article· en· W2017002155 on OpenAlexaff
Fady F. Barsoum, Y. Zhang, Amir Fam

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2010 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersEmbry-Riddle Aeronautical University
KeywordsStructural engineeringVibrationNatural frequencyFinite element methodModalCantileverModal analysisComposite numberWork (physics)EngineeringMaterials scienceAcousticsComposite materialMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind-induced fatigue failure of traffic and light poles has not been sufficiently studied neither has it been used as a design criteria by many pole manufactures. This paper presents the results of experimental testing of a new steel-concrete composite pole. The new pole features a thin-walled hollow steel tube partially filled with concrete near the base. The experimental work aimed to evaluate the natural frequencies of the poles and find the optimal concrete filling length for the best dynamic performance. Experimental results showed that for the tested poles, the optimal length of concrete filling ranged between 37% and 43% of the total length, and yielded 18% to 26% increase in the first natural frequency of the pole. The experimental results were within 10% difference when compared to predicted values using a finite element-based modal analysis. The new optimized composite poles, with natural frequencies higher than the inherited frequencies of typical wind loads, would better endure wind-induced vibrations.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2010Same topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207