Behaviour of steel and (or) composite girders with corrugated steel webs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Composite beams with corrugated steel webs represent a new innovative system which has emerged in the past decade for short and medium span bridges. The new system usually combines the usage of corrugated steel plates as webs and reinforced/prestressed concrete slabs as flanges for plate or box girders. Bridges that have been recently built with this hybrid system are outlined in this paper, which focuses on the advantages of using corrugated steel webs as opposed to traditional flat webs. The flexural behaviour and bearing resistance of girders with corrugated steel webs is briefly discussed. The flanges of the new system solely provide the flexural strength of the beam with no contribution from the corrugated web. On the other hand, the corrugated web provides the shear capacity of the system. Thus, the shear behaviour of girders with corrugated webs is explicitly discussed focusing on the different failure and (or) buckling modes that affect the design of the corrugated steel web plates. Design charts for such webs are constructed based on the different interaction equations of failure. The torsion-warping behaviour of composite box girders with corrugated steel webs is also discussed.Key words: bridges, composite beams, corrugated steel webs, global buckling mode, interactive buckling, local buckling.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".