MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W814662788

Parametric Effects on the Evaluation of an Impact-Damaged Prestressed Concrete Bridge Girder Repaired by Externally Bonded CFRP Sheets

2015· article· en· W814662788 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hossein Azimi, Khaled Sennah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Performance of Constructed Facilities · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringPrecast concreteGirderFinite element methodStructural loadFibre-reinforced plasticParametric statisticsPrestressed concreteEngineeringBearing capacityMaterials science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An AASHTO Type-III precast/prestressed girder that was extensively damaged by truck impact was used to explore the adequacy of a repair using externally bonded fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites. This paper analytically investigates the evaluation procedure of such repaired prestressed bridge girder that can be applied to bridges with similar vehicle impact conditions. Few parameters were investigated in this study, including (i) the effect of horizontal resistance of elastomeric bearing supports, (ii) the presence of barrier wall and sidewalk, and (iii) live load distribution factors obtained from Finite Element Analysis (FEA) compared to the simplified method prescribed by the Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). FEA showed that support horizontal resistance has negligible effects on live load distribution factors for shear, Fv, while it has considerable effect on live load distribution factors for moment, Fm. The live load distribution factors Fm and Fv obtained from FEA were observed to be all smaller than those prescribed by CHBDC showing that the approach taken by CHBDC is conservative for the studied bridge. Fm and Fv of external girders obtained by FEA were as much as 30% and 40% less than those of CHBDC. Inclusion of barrier wall and sidewalk in the analysis showed an additional 18% reduction for Fm, with insignificant effect on Fv. The live load capacity factor as the safety indicator in the bridge evaluation was calculated analytically by Load and Resistance Factor Method and Mean Load Method and then correlated with experimental findings of proof load test on the repaired girder.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Performance of Constructed FacilitiesSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207