MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995438856 · doi:10.22064/tava.2019.97819.1123

Damage detection of multi-girder bridge superstructure based on the modal strain approaches

2019· article· en· W2995438856 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neda Baghiee, Mohammad Reza Esfahani, Kazem Moslem

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringSuperstructureModalBridge (graph theory)Girder bridgeGirderStrain (injury)EngineeringComputer scienceMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research described in this paper focuses on the application of modal strain techniques on a multi-girder bridge superstructure with the objectives of identifying the presence of damage and detecting false damage diagnosis for such structures. The case study is a one-third scale model of a slab-on-girder composite bridge superstructure, comprised of a steel-free concrete deck with FRP rebars supported by four steel girders, similar to North Perimeter Red River Bridge in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The modal test data of the slab-on-girder specimen are analyzed by two mathematical methods and Mindlin approach. The Mindlin approach uses a small number of sensors and only the fundamental mode of vibration to obtain the modal strains. The unit-area normalization method produces a more precise damage patternbased on the Mindlin approach than the widely used unit-norm method and is thus a superior method for locating damage in multi-girder bridge structures. A new method is proposed to distinguish the false damage diagnosis that is common in multi-girder systems. Based on the invariant stress resultant theory and direct stiffness assumptions, a level III damage detection process is applied successfully to indicate damage localization and severity estimation of the damaged girder.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.295
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.200 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207