MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

In- and Out-of-Plane Bending in Steel Through-Truss Bridges

2022· article· en· W4210436083 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gongkang Fu, Sergio Zoruba

Bibliographic record

VenuePractice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringBendingTrussFlexural strengthBent molecular geometryEngineeringPlane (geometry)Stress (linguistics)Span (engineering)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Steel through-truss is a very common configuration for railroad and highway bridges. There is a large number of such spans in surface transportation infrastructure worldwide, especially in railway systems. In design and evaluation, these spans’ in- and out-of-plane bending have been either omitted or approximated. A fuller understanding of this effect will be able to assist in reliably designing and assessing these structures for longevity and/or increasing allowable service load to facilitate economic developments. A full scale load test is performed in this paper on five such bridges of the Canadian National Railway (CN) using train load. The main truss elements prone to in- and out-of-plane bending are identified and strain-gauged including the hanger (L1U1 or L’1U’1). Out-of-plane bending is seen to produce more significant flexural stress than in-plane bending. Three-dimensional (3D) numerical simulation is also verified by physical tests and covers other uninstrumented members of the tested spans. These results are used to evaluate the accuracy of a new and simplifying two-dimensional (2D) analysis method for the most significantly bent vertical hanger out-of-plane. The 2D method is shown to capture a significant portion of the bending but still underestimate flexural stress. An empirical and hybrid approach is therefore developed and recommended to address the inadequately accounted out-of-plane bending for routine practice of design and evaluation. It is needed when resources for detailed 3D analysis are not readily available, and/or when a quick and reliable method is needed, e.g., for verification or calibration of another method. These results are also useful for stress range estimation for fatigue analysis, although fatigue is not a concern to these bridges and is therefore not specifically addressed in this paper. CN has adopted the recommended method and the other research findings in load-rating their existing through-truss bridges.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePractice Periodical on Structural Design and ConstructionSame topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207