MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387422937 · doi:10.3390/engproc2023043046

Fatigue Testing and Analysis of Flare Bevel Groove-Welded Aluminum Joints for Pedestrian Bridge Applications

2023· article· en· W4387422937 on OpenAlexaff
Abdullah Abdelbadie, Scott Walbridge

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringWeldingGroove (engineering)Finite element methodBevelMaterials scienceFillet weldTruss bridgeTrussEngineeringComposite materialMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flare bevel groove (FBG) welds are used in truss bridges with square hollow structural section (HSS) members. To reduce costs, joints can be welded without bevelling, but this negatively impacts the fatigue performance of the connection. This approach is often used in pedestrian bridges made from steel or aluminum. To investigate the fatigue performance of FBG welds, a study was conducted on T-joints made from aluminum square HSS members. The goal was to establish an S–N curve for these welds and present a numerical fatigue life prediction methodology. The study involved cyclic tests supplemented by a fatigue life prediction using linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) coupled with finite element (FE) analysis using the software ABAQUS. Several parameters were varied, including the HSS section size and the corner radius (as extruded and hand ground). Six identical samples were tested for each combination of parameters to generate an S–N curve. The paper ends by drawing conclusions regarding the fatigue performance of aluminum FBG welds and their suitability for use in cyclically loaded structures such as pedestrian 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207