MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074746374 · doi:10.3141/2360-04

Fatigue Testing and Structural Health Monitoring of Retrofitted Web Stiffeners on Steel Highway Bridges

2013· article· en· W2074746374 on OpenAlexafffund
Kasra Ghahremani, Ayan Sadhu, Scott Walbridge, Sriram Narasimhan

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersMinistère des TransportsUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsStructural engineeringWeldingCrackingGirderDeflection (physics)Materials scienceTransverse planeFinite element methodFatigue crackingEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous steel highway bridges, still in use today, were built during the construction boom between the late 1950s and the late 1970s. Fatigue cracking can be considered a main source of deterioration for these bridges. The largest category of observed fatigue cracks is caused by out-of-plane distortion. The most susceptible locations are those at which transverse structural components (such as diaphragms or cross frames) are framed into longitudinal girders through web stiffeners that are not attached to the flanges. In the current study, a web stiffener detail is fatigue tested under different cyclic loading conditions. As-welded specimens are tested, along with specimens retrofitted by grinding and rewelding, needle peening, or the adhesive bonding of fiber-reinforced polymer attachments. Direct strain and deflection measurements are compared with finite element analysis predictions, and local (hot-spot) stresses are compared with hot-spot stress design curves. A time series–based method for damage detection is also explored for the prediction of fatigue crack depth with strain data. The method is validated through the use of small- and large-scale specimen strain data. It is found that damage measures based on strains in the vicinity of the critical hot spot are closely correlated with the true crack depth.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research BoardSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207