MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W54497526

Concrete half joint bridges in New South Wales: challenges in risk management

2011· article· en· W54497526 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bagawath Singh Santhanam, Parvez Mustaque Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueAustroads Bridge Conference, 8th, 2011, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Joint (building)EngineeringForensic engineeringCivil engineeringTransport engineeringStructural engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Half joints were introduced into bridges to simplify design, construction and allow for bridge movements. The sudden collapse of a concrete half joint overpass bridge in Montreal, Canada, after about forty years in service, prompted concern within the bridge community regarding the inherent risks involved in this type of bridges. This paper gives an outline of Road and Traffic Authority's (RTA) different type of half joint bridge stocks and examines in detail the challenges faced by RTA in maintaining these bridge stocks for ever increasing road traffic. It also discusses the maintenance strategy currently under development at RTA to sustain these bridges for future generation. Recently a detailed analytical study was carried out at RTA for a half joint concrete bridge in Cooma, New South Wales. This paper highlights how Finite Element based techniques can be utilised to arrive realistic wheel load transfer into individual half joints and compares these results against the traditional code based Distribution Factor methods. It also addresses how concrete stress field based strut and tie modelling can be used to assess the resistance capacities of these half joints at the Ultimate Limit State.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.114 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustroads Bridge Conference, 8th, 2011, Sydney, New South Wales, AustraliaSame topicStructural Engineering and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207