MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041756272 · doi:10.7492/ijaec.2013.001

Dynamic Axle Force and Road Profile Identification Using a Moving Vehicle

2013· article· en· W2041756272 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patrick McGetrick, Chul‐Woo Kim, Arturo González, Eugene J. OBrien

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Architecture Engineering and Construction · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxleEngineeringSurface finishRoad surfaceVehicle dynamicsAccelerometerAxle loadStructural engineeringSurface roughnessBridge (graph theory)Range (aeronautics)Automotive engineeringSimulationComputer scienceMechanical engineeringAerospace engineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The axle forces applied by a vehicle through its wheels are a critical part of the interaction between vehicles, pavements and bridges. Therefore, the minimisation of these forces is important in order to promote long pavement life spans and ensure that bridge loads are small. Moreover, as the road surface roughness affects the vehicle dynamic forces, the monitoring of pavements for highways and bridges is an important task. This paper presents a novel algorithm to identify these dynamic interaction forces which involves direct instrumentation of a vehicle with accelerometers. The ability of this approach to predict the pavement roughness is also presented. Moving force identification theory is applied to a vehicle model in theoretical simulations in order to obtain the interaction forces and pavement roughness from the measured accelerations. The method is tested for a range of bridge spans in simulations and the influence of road roughness level on the accuracy of the results is investigated. Finally, the challenge for the real-world problem is addressed in a laboratory experiment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Architecture Engineering and ConstructionSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207