MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311238873 · doi:10.18280/mmep.090519

Effects of Pavement Roughness and Dynamic Tank Load on the Bridge Response

2022· article· en· W4311238873 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Duaa M. Rasol, Salah R. Al-Zaidee

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeflection (physics)Structural engineeringSurface finishAllowance (engineering)Dynamic load testingInternational Roughness IndexSurface roughnessEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to investigate the dynamic Load allowance variation (DLA) of dynamic tank Loads and compare it with Iraq's standard specifications for road bridges. DLA is considered a simple measurement of the dynamic variation magnitude of the tank load for a specific combination of road roughness and speed. In addition to determining the stochastic dynamic response of the bridge. Al-Awsej bridge in Iraq, with a span of 33.2 m and a principal road with four pavement roughness classes (very good, good, average, and poor), was proposed as a case study in this analysis. A spectral closed-form solution was used for evaluating the dynamic tank load due to the passage of a tank type-72A at a constant speed of 40,50,60 and 70 km/hr along a bridge with different types of rough pavement surface. The results show the less value of DLA for very good pavement at 40 km/hr is about 0.032, and the largest value is about 0.293 at 70 km/hr for poor pavement. Also, road surface roughness greatly influences vehicle-bridge interactions and bridge responses. Where at 40 km/hr, the Root mean square of bridge deflection range from 0.31 to 2.75 mm and 0.39 to 3.14 mm at 70 km/hr.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.179 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207