Seismic performance comparison between direct displacement-based and force-based design of a multi-span continuous reinforced concrete bridge with irregular column heights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
North American bridge design codes, e.g., Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code and AASHTO 2007, follow force-based design (FBD) method, which is focused at the target force resistance capacity of the structure. Displacement-based design (DBD) method, on the other hand, aims to ensure a target maximum displacement of the bridge during earthquakes in a specific zone. In this study, bridges with irregular column heights have been designed according to DBD and FBD (as per Canadian standards and AASHTO 2007) considering seismic loading. Subsequently, seismic performances of the bridges designed with the two different methods have been compared by conducting nonlinear dynamic analyses in the longitudinal direction. Maximum and residual displacements and energy dissipation capacity are used as performance indicators. This study outlines the necessity of possible modification in the current Canadian seismic design standards as well as DBD for bridges with irregular column heights.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".