MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953661745 · doi:10.1155/2019/6847053

Predictive Analytics of In‐Service Bridge Structural Performance from SHM Data Mining Perspective: A Case Study

2019· article· en· W2953661745 on OpenAlexaff
Qiwen Jin, Zheng Liu, Junchi Bin, Wei‐Xin Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueShock and Vibration · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)AnalyticsPerspective (graphical)Structural health monitoringService (business)Computer scienceData analysisData miningPredictive analyticsData scienceEngineeringStructural engineeringBusinessMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In‐service bridge structural performance analysis and prediction are usually complicated and challenging because of many unknown and uncertain factors. Contrary to the traditional structural appearance inspections and load tests, structural health monitoring (SHM) can provide a perspective for online analysis, prediction, and early warning. So far, SHM has been widely used in many bridge structures, and a lot of bridge SHM data have also been collected. However, the existing studies usually focus on some independent and unsystematic analysis methods, which are hard to use widely in engineering applications to reveal the overall structural performance. This study focuses on the structural performance analysis and prediction of the highway in‐service bridge. The dynamic problems in bridge SHM are pointed out firstly, followed by a detailed analysis about the characteristics of bridge SHM data. With the consideration of different characteristics, three targeted analysis methods are proposed. An urban concrete‐filled steel tube (CFST) truss girder bridge (opened to traffic in 1995) is also presented, which once experienced some prominent vibration problems. The bridge SHM system is designed and stalled after several appearance inspections, load tests, and some reinforcement measures. The data mining methods proposed (distribution function, association analysis, and time‐series analysis) are employed for the analysis and prediction of structural response and deterioration extent. This study can provide some references for maintenance and management and can also build a foundation for further online analysis and early warning.

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)0.002
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 score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShock and VibrationSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207