MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7094685211

Design and Implementation\nof the\nManitoba Constrained-Width Tall Wall Barrier

2017· article· W7094685211 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueInsecta mundi · 2017
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation Safety and Impact Analysis
Canadian institutionsResearch Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeckBridge (graph theory)Span (engineering)CantileverFootprintBridge deckBase (topology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manitoba Infrastructure (MI) desired a new, tall concrete median barrier capable of satisfying the Test Level 5 (TL-5) safety requirements of the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). It needed to fit within the footprint of an existing F-shape median barrier located in a narrow median. It also was required to address headlight glare from opposing traffic. The barrier was designed with a height of 1,250 mm, a maximum width of 600 mm and to resist a load of 845 kN applied at the top of the barrier. The Manitoba Constrained-Width, Tall Wall was optimised to withstand the design load while minimising the amount of steel reinforcement. Variations of the barrier were developed, including a bridge rail and a roadside barrier.\nThe bridge rail was considered to be the critical design due to its narrow width and anchorage to a relatively thin, cantilevered bridge deck. Thus, one full-scale vehicle crash test was conducted on the bridge rail system to verify the entire family of barriers. A vertical back barrier (45.72 m long) was constructed. It had a height of 1,250 mm and widths of 450 mm at its base and 250 millimetres at the top. The upstream half of the barrier (22.86 m) was constructed on a simulated bridge deck that was 280 mm thick. A gap in the bridge rail was constructed that was 168 mm wide and a gap in the bridge deck that was 19 mm wide; these were placed mid-span to simulate an expansion joint. A steel cover plate was placed over the barrier joint to prevent vehicle snag. During the test, the tractor trailer impacted just upstream from the joint and was safely redirected. The barrier sustained minor damage in the form of cracks and spalling.\nAnchorage options were developed for use with the TL-5 barrier system, including a foundation slab and an independent footing. Transition systems were also detailed for the connection of the TL-5 median barrier to various other new and existing barrier shapes. Finally, Manitoba Infrastructure developed a full series of barrier systems for median and roadside conditions that will provide designers many options to create construction drawings for their projects that are specific for their site(s).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsecta mundiSame topicTransportation Safety and Impact AnalysisFrench-language works237,207