MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3058609855 · doi:10.1002/suco.202000033

Structural performance assessment of a 60‐year‐old reinforced concrete bent cap

2020· article· en· W3058609855 on OpenAlexaff
Jarrod Zaborac, Bernardo Perez, Trevor D. Hrynyk, Oguzhan Bayrak

Bibliographic record

VenueStructural Concrete · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersTexas Department of Transportation
KeywordsStructural engineeringCrackingBent molecular geometryShear (geology)Finite element methodReinforced concreteEngineeringBridge (graph theory)Geotechnical engineeringGeologyComputer scienceMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As the world's reinforced concrete (RC) civil infrastructure continues to age and exhibit visual signs of distress (e.g., cracking), the challenge of how to process this visual information is becoming increasingly important. While research is ongoing in this field, limited work has been done involving structures that are truly representative of real‐world, aged civil infrastructure requiring assessment. Thus, this paper presents the results of an experimental program and subsequent numerical investigation into the performance of a diagonally cracked, RC bent cap that was removed from a 60‐year‐old bridge in Texas. Extensive work was done to document the cracking behavior and characterize the mechanical properties of the bent cap prior to ultimate load testing. The numerical investigation included both “conventional” methods and nonlinear finite element analysis (with and without consideration of existing damage). Ultimately, the results of the experimental and numerical investigations suggest that, while the bent cap was exhibiting large‐width shear cracks in service, the damage was not indicative of an impending shear failure.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructural ConcreteSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207