Effects of column stiffness irregularity on the seismic response of bridges in the longitudinal direction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The longitudinal seismic responses of 4-span continuous bridges designed based on the 2006 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code were studied using elastic response spectrum and inelastic time-history analyses. Several boundary conditions including unrestrained horizontal movements at the abutments and different abutment stiffnesses were considered in the nonlinear analyses. The seismic response of more than 2600 bridges were studied to determine the effects of different design and modelling parameters including the effects of different column heights, column diameters, and superstructure mass as well as different abutment stiffnesses. The bridges were designed using two different force modification factors of 3 and 5. The effects of column stiffness ratios on the elastic and inelastic analysis results, maximum ductility demands, concentration of ductility demands, and demand to capacity ratios were investigated. The results indicate that the seismic response and maximum ductility demands in the longitudinal direction are influenced by important parameters such as the total stiffness of the substructure, the column stiffness ratio, and the aspect ratio of the columns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".