MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404181752 · doi:10.1016/j.prostr.2024.09.274

Random Finite Element Reliability Assessment of Existing Concrete Structures – Case Studies and Research Direction

2024· article· en· W4404181752 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fadi Oudah, Glen Norlander

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Structural Integrity · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsFuelCell Energy (Canada)Dalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodReliability (semiconductor)Structural engineeringReliability engineeringStructural reliabilityEngineeringComputer scienceMaterials sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The material properties of concrete and reinforcing steel in reinforced concrete structures vary spatially across the structural dimensions due to the inherent heterogeneous nature of concrete. The spatial variation is further affected by active deterioration mechanisms such as freeze thaw damage, alkali silica reactivity, and corrosion of the reinforcing steel as all of these mechanisms are random. The spatial variation of concrete mechanical properties (compressive strength, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity) and corrosion effect of reduced section loss influence the structural reliability, and hence, the structural risk. Random finite element (RFE) simulation has been recently employed in engineering consultancy to assess structures with spatially varying properties using reliability analysis. The objectives of this paper are to 1) document the application of RFE in real-life case studies of structural reliability assessment projects conducted by the authors in Canada, and 2) provide recommendations for future research to improve the practicality of analysis for consulting jobs. The paper will provide readers with insight into the application of advanced methods of analysis in consulting work for risk-based condition assessment of critical infrastructure. Recommendations for future research and analysis refinements are discussed.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.276
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia Structural IntegritySame topicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignFrench-language works237,207