MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807576913 · doi:10.14288/1.0362874

Ambient modal identification, finite element model updating, and seismic analysis of bridges on Trans-Canada Highway

2018· article· en· W2807576913 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bahram Khan

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModalFinite element methodIdentification (biology)GeologyStructural engineeringModal analysisComputer scienceEngineeringForensic engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis features finite element model updating of two short-span concrete bridges, namely Gaglardi Way Underpass and Kensington Avenue Underpass. The main objective was to study the effect and determine the importance of finite element model updating by comparing the structural responses for the updated model to the preliminary model. The study was carried out by developing a finite element (FE) model and an operational modal analysis (OMA) model for each bridge. The FE model represented the analytical prototype of the actual structure, while the OMA model was used to extract the modal information for existing structure using the vibration data recorded under normal operating conditions from permanent sensors installed on corners and at mid-span of these bridges. The natural frequencies from OMA were set as a target for the FE model to match. The process of calibrating the analytical FE model to the match the modal information acquired from the experimental model is known as ‘Model Updating’. Having the frequency responses defined, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the parameters that are most sensitive to change, based on which the FE model was automatically updated in an iterative manner. The modal assurance criterion (MAC) and mode shape responses were not used during calibration step since the vibration testing was not dense enough, however, they were solely used as a means of comparing the calibrated FE model to the experimental results. Once the objective of model updating was accomplished, a linear modal time history analysis was carried out using three ground motions having a low, medium range, and a very high peak ground acceleration (PGA), in addition to a fourth very low ambient level ground motion. Comparing the resulting absolute maximum base reactions and the mid-span structural displacements from updated model to the original model, it was concluded that the percentage changes were significantly high, therefore, the chance of original model being uncertain is very high for which model updating is an important and a highly effective technique, where possible, to generate a high confidence FE model that in best possible manner represents the behaviour of an actual structure.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207