Probabilistic Models to Evaluate Effectiveness of Steel Bridge Weld Fatigue Retrofitting by Peening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate, with two probabilistic analytical models, the effectiveness of several alternative fatigue management strategies for steel bridge welds. The investigated strategies employed, in various combinations, magnetic particle inspection, gouging and rewelding, and postweld treatment by peening. The analytical models included a probabilistic strain-based fracture mechanics model and a Markov chain model. For comparing the results obtained with the two models, the fatigue life was divided into a small, fixed number of condition states based on crack depth, similar to those often used by bridge management systems to model deterioration due to other processes, such as corrosion and road surface wear. The probabilistic strain-based fracture mechanics model was verified first by comparison with design S–N curves and test data for untreated welds. Next, the verified model was used to determine the probability that untreated and treated welds would be in each condition state in a given year; the probabilities were then used to calibrate transition probabilities for a much simpler Markov chain fatigue model. Then both models were used to simulate a number of fatigue management strategies. From the results of these simulations, the performance of the different strategies was compared, and the accuracy of the simpler Markov chain fatigue model was evaluated. In general, peening was more effective if preceded by inspection of the weld. The Markov chain fatigue model did a reasonable job of predicting the general trends and relative effectiveness of the different investigated strategies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".