MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883012434 · doi:10.1061/9780784481257.077

Prediction Error in Strain Response in Finite Element Simulations with Moving Load Formulation of Train Passages of Open Deck Steel Bridges

2018· article· en· W2883012434 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gunnstein T. Frøseth, Anders Rønnquist, Ole Øiseth

Bibliographic record

VenueICRT 2017 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsFinite element methodBridge (graph theory)Strain gaugeDeckStructural engineeringMoving loadEngineeringService lifeComputer scienceReliability engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers the model prediction error in strain response estimation by finite element models with moving load formulation of open deck railway bridges. A typical finite element model and load formulation used in remaining service life estimate is presented and used to determine the response of train passages at fatigue critical locations on the railway bridge over Stjørdalselva. The predicted response is compared to measurements obtained from an extensive monitoring campaign on the bridge conducted during summer and fall of 2016 where 93 strain gages where installed on the bridge. The research has potential impact on the precision of service life estimation by model prediction and may help infrastructure owners in budgeting and decision making regarding maintenance of critical infrastructure.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICRT 2017Same topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207