Fretting fatigue life of galvanized bridge support cable wire: Experimental study and strain-based fracture mechanics analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Fretting fatigue behavior of galvanized wires was studied using strain-based fracture mechanics. • Point load weight functions for wires were developed to determine stress gradient factors. • Shape functions for strain intensity factors were determined using a 3D model. • Fatigue tests calibrated a key strain-based fracture mechanics parameter (initial crack length). The galvanized wires used in cable bridges can fail due to fretting fatigue. Experimental results have shown that defects resulting from the galvanization process are a possible source of initiation for fatigue cracks and make the life shorter than that of a wire without a galvanized layer. The investigation presented in this paper uses strain-based fracture mechanics to analyze the influence of these defects on the fatigue life of galvanized wire. The presented analysis considers nonlinear material behaviour. A 3D finite element model is used to compute the required stress field. Stress intensity factors are obtained by a proposed numerical point load weight function, and shape factors are found for the surface and deepest points of the semielliptical crack. Plain fatigue tests of galvanized wires are performed to calibrate key model parameters. The calibrated model is then shown to provide reasonably accurate but systematically conservative estimates of the fatigue life under fretting conditions typical of bridge stay cable saddle supports.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".