MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2188945440 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2015-0170

Lateral torsional buckling of steel twin plate girder systems with torsional braces only

2015· article· en· W2188945440 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Chris Mantha, Xi Chen, Yi Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringGirderBraceFinite element methodStiffnessBucklingBracingEngineeringSpan (engineering)Truss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents results of both an experimental and a finite element study on the lateral torsional buckling behaviour and strength of twin plate girder systems with only discrete torsional braces. Two scaled twin-beam specimens with different arrangements of lateral and torsional braces were tested and results were used to validate the finite element model. The finite element study considered the effect of individual brace member stiffness and the number of braces. Results showed that for twin plate girders braced with only torsional braces, the critical buckling moment has the most significant increase when the number of interior braces increases from two to three. For a given girder section, the increase in the critical moment capacity by increasing the cross-frame member size is minimal. The lateral torsional buckling moment equation as well as the brace force design procedure contained in the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code were examined. A relationship between the ratio of provided-to-required torsional stiffness and the effective length factor was discussed.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207