MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W637264236

Alberta Transportation Experience with Debonded Pre-Tensioning Strands in Precast NU Girders

2011· article· en· W637264236 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John H. Alexander, David M. Rogowsky, B Ramsay

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGirderPrecast concreteStructural engineeringBridge (graph theory)EngineeringPrestressed concreteCode of practiceConstruction engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precast concrete NU girders have been used in Alberta Transportation bridges since 2001 with spans ranging from 30 - 65m. These bridges consist of pre-tensioned NU girders which are typically post-tensioned in the field for longitudinal continuity. It is standard practice in Alberta to utilize deflected strands as well as debonded strands to minimize stresses at the ends of these girders during fabrication. The Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC S6-06) limits the number of debonded strands to a maximum of 25% of the total number of strands in the girder. Design engineers have found the code clause to be somewhat unclear and have often questioned whether the limits are applicable to girders which are pre-tensioned and posttensioned. In Alberta, it has been typical practice for designers to limit the percentage of debonded strands to between 25% and 40% of the total number of pre-tensioning strands in the girder and to stagger the strand debonding locations. On a recent project, NU girders were fabricated with over 50% debonded strands, all of which were debonded concurrently. This paper presents the engineering rationale that was developed to support the acceptance of these girders. For the covering abstract of this conference see record control number 201111RT334E.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete→French-language works237,207→