Die Überprüfung von Spannbetonkonstruktionen auf Unversehrtheit der Spannglieder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Brückenbauwerke sind einer ständig steigenden Verkehrslast ausgesetzt. Die Altersstruktur, die Belastungssituation und der Zustand der Brücken sind verschieden. Mehr als 20000 Brücken in Deutschland bestehen aus Spannbeton, deren Stabilität wesentlich von der Unversehrtheit der Spannbewehrung abhängt. Korrosionsschäden an der Spannbewehrung sind von der Oberfläche her nicht sichtbar. An der Technischen Universität Berlin wurde ein mobiles Magnetmesssystem entwickelt, das speziell für Brücken den Zustand der Spanndrähte analysiert. Dazu müssen weder Brückenbereiche geöffnet noch der Fahrbahnbelag entfernt werden. In den letzten zehn Jahren wurden bisher mehr als 14 Spannbetonbrücken, fünf davon in den USA/Kanada, untersucht. Das Verfahren wurde an der Lehigh Universität in Bethlehem (USA) im Zuge einer weltweiten Vergleichsuntersuchung 2009 und 2010 als besonders qualifiziert evaluiert. The inspection of prestressed concrete structures to the integrity of the tendons. Bridges are exposed to an ever‐increasing traffic load. The age structure, the stress situation and the condition of the bridges are different. More than 20000 bridges in Germany are made of prestressed concrete, whose stability depends essentially on the integrity of the tension reinforcement. Corrosion damages to the tension reinforcement are not visible from the surface. At the Technical University of Berlin, a mobile magnetic measurement system has been developed specifically for bridges. It analyzes the state of the tension wires. This system areas not require any removal of the bridge pavement. In the past ten years 14 prestressed concrete bridges have been studied, five of them in the USA/Canada. The process was evaluated at Lehigh University in Bethlehem (USA), as part of a worldwide comparative study in 2009 and 2010.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".