Predicting fatigue life of shear connectors in steel‐concrete composite bridges using artificial intelligence techniques
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fatigue limit states often govern the design of shear connectors in steel‐concrete composite bridges. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications provides a linear equation in a semi‐logarithmic S‐N curve for predicting the fatigue life of shear connectors. However, this equation can be too conservative in some cases, as supported by the available experimental data. In this paper, artificial intelligence (AI) was incorporated into the prediction of the fatigue life of shear connectors. Six different machine learning (ML) algorithms were considered for this purpose. The predictions of ML algorithms were compared both with the available experimental data and the equation provided by AASHTO. The results showed that the fatigue life predicted by ML methods is more accurate than that predicted by the current equation of AASHTO. The results of this study showed that AI can be a proper alternative to the existing methods for predicting the fatigue life of shear connectors.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it