Numerical modeling of rolling loading of bridge deck with different reinforcement types
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 This paper presents a complex nonlinear finite element model of a full‐scale bridge deck that was experimentally studied under both pulsating and rolling load. The bridge deck was designed to incorporate three different reinforcement designs implemented at various portions of the slab to maximize test efficiency. The different stiffness across the longitudinal span poses a challenge for the finite element model to simulate the behavior of the bridge deck. The deck is comprised of zones incorporating different types of reinforcements, namely conventional steel rebar, glass fiber‐reinforced polymer (GFRP) rebar, and a new GFRP stay‐in‐place structural form system. All zones are integrated in one monolithic cast. The finite element model features characteristics such as nonlinear material laws, failure criteria, and interfacial relations for parts in contact. To verify the applicability and adequacy of selected material models, 14 specimens representing three different concrete structures and test setups from independent studies were modeled and validated. A model of the bridge deck was then created and validated using the data from the experiment featuring service load level.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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