MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Laser-Based Field Measurement for a Bridge Finite-Element Model Validation

2013· article· en· W2066544723 on OpenAlexaff
Kaoshan Dai, David Boyajian, Wanqiu Liu, Shen-En Chen, Jeremy Scott, Marcus Schmieder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Performance of Constructed Facilities · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsRiverview Hospital
FundersUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNatural Science Foundation of Shanghai
KeywordsLaser Doppler vibrometerStructural engineeringBridge (graph theory)Finite element methodGirderStructural health monitoringLaser scanningVibrationEngineeringLoad testingSpan (engineering)LaserAcousticsOpticsDistributed feedback laser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In bridge engineering, laser-based measurement techniques show promise in assisting field tests due to their noncontact features. A case study of using laser-based remote sensing to help collect data during in situ testing for a bridge finite-element (FE) model validation is reported in this paper. The skewed two-span bridge in this study was constructed with nine high performance steel girders in two phases. A three-dimensional (3D) FE model of the bridge superstructure was developed based on the information provided by the design files. Various field tests were performed to validate the model: (1) light detection and ranging (LiDAR) scanning, (2) static truck load tests, and (3) laser Doppler vibrometer testing. The LiDAR scanner collected geometrical information of the actual bridge. It was also used to measure girder deflections during load testing. The fundamental frequency of the bridge vibration was obtained by using a laser Doppler vibrometer (LDV). In situ dynamic and static measurements were compared to the FE model results, thus offering validation of the analytical predictions. Such analysis of the bridge superstructure serves as a baseline for post construction investigations, with important implications especially for the long-term structural health monitoring of the system as a whole.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Performance of Constructed FacilitiesSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207