The York-Arup cable experiments: Implications for the fire design of cable-supported bridges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent trends towards performance-based fire designs for complex and critical structures have posed questions about the fire resilience of bridge infrastructure. There are little-to-no code requirements for bridge fire resistance and practitioner guidance on the subject is limited. Research on the fire performance of cable-supported bridge structures is scarce and knowledge gaps persist that inhibit more informed fire protection designs in a variety of bridge types. There have been few numerical or experimental studies that investigate the fire performance of steel stay-cables for use in cable-supported bridges. The thermal response of these members is critical as cable systems are highly dependent on the response of individual members, such as in the case of an anchor cable for example. The study herein examines the thermal response of several varieties of unloaded steel- stay cable during exposure to a non-standard methanol pool fire and the implications for the structural response of a cable-supported bridge. Experimental thermal strain data from fire tests of various stay-cables is used to inform high-level insights for the global response of a cable-supported bridge. Namely, the effects of cable thermal expansion on the overall cable system is approximated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".