Fatigue assessment for deck plates in orthotropic bridge decks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since the 1960s, orthotropic deck plates of highway bridges have been built with large cold‐formed trapezoidal stiffeners supporting a deck plate with a thickness of approx. 12 mm. The maximum cross‐beam spacing is approx. 4 m. A number of these bridge decks in The Netherlands suffer from fatigue cracks in the deck plate. First cracks have been observed after about 30 years in service. In one particular movable bridge, the cracks were found after only seven years. In many other countries, this type of crack has not yet been observed. This article provides a fatigue assessment procedure for deck plates. The procedure is calibrated with the conditions and observations in The Netherlands. It gives a fatigue life prediction and takes account of inspection results quantitatively. Although aspects such as the type and thickness of the surface finishes and the traffic load may vary between countries, the principles of the assessment procedure in this article are generally applicable and can be used to identify reasons for differences in fatigue life and to develop strategies for increasing the life.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".