MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Effect of Girder Profiles on the Probability of Fatigue Damage in Continuous I-Multigirder Steel Bridges

2025· article· en· W4409326775 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Graziano Fiorillo, Navid Manouchehri

Bibliographic record

VenueInfrastructures · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGirderStructural engineeringMaterials scienceForensic engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fatigue is one of the main sources of mechanical failure in steel bridges. However, a few studies have investigated the relationship between the longitudinal shape of bridge girders and long-term fatigue effects. This paper shows how different girder profiles affect the probability of fatigue damage occurring in continuous I-multigirder steel bridges. The analysis was conducted using realistic traffic scenarios defined through truck data collected in USA and Canada. Monte Carlo simulations with 5000 realizations were performed on several continuous bridge configurations with different span lengths and different girder profiles. The results of the analysis showed that the probability of fatigue damage is affected by profile shape and the smoothness of the transition between the maximum and minimum height of the cross section. In particular, the probability of fatigue damage on continuous I-multigirder steel bridges can be reduced by up to 26% for typical fatigue construction details over a bridge service life of 75 years by modifying the geometry of the girders during the design phase of the bridge.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfrastructuresSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207