Monitoring and Load Distribution Study for the Land Bridge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A monitoring program and a live load distribution study were conducted for the Land Bridge, located on State Highway 131 between Ontario and LaFarge in southwest Wisconsin. The bridge is a 275-ft long curved double trapezoidal steel box girder construction. Hybrid HPS70W and A588 weathering steels were used for the construction of the bridge. The monitoring program included measurements of live load and thermal strains as well as displacements for the girders over a four-year period. The effects of the in-service live load, in terms of both the applied stresses and the number of load cycles, were found to be insignificant. The thermal stress levels were found to be more significant but with only a limited number of load cycles. It was also found that there was no significant change in the load pattern, for both the stress level and number of load cycles, over the four years of the monitoring program for the bridge. The observed stress levels in the bridge were found to be below the fatigue stress threshold prescribed by AASHTO. This indicated that an infinite life could be expected for the bridge when fatigue is a consideration for the steel box girders. The live load distribution study for the Land Bridge included a field testing, a 3-D numerical simulation, and a comparative study of the results with those determined by the provisions of the AASHTO standard and LRFD specifications. Good agreement was achieved between the load distribution factor values that were obtained from the field testing and the numerical simulation. The comparison of the results with the values obtained from the AASHTO specifications indicated that over-conservative results yielded from the standard specifications while the results from the LRFD specifications were under-conservative. It is recommended that an additional study be performed to overcome this shortcoming of the current design specifications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".