Field monitoring of earth pressures on integral bridge abutments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integral abutment bridges have become a successful alternative to the traditional design procedure of using expansion joints to balance the thermal movements of bridge structures. However, there are many design and detailing variations, and uncertainties exist about the soil–structure interaction of the integral abutments. Therefore, field data from pressure cells installed behind the abutments of a 76 m long, two-span, pile-supported integral abutment bridge are the focus of this paper. The data on external displacements of the abutments are also reported. The applicability of using common theoretical passive earth pressure coefficients is assessed and it appears that the traditional methods of Coulomb and Rankine are not the best approach for predicting the earth pressure envelope. Additionally, over the monitoring period of three years, it was found that a definite conclusion regarding the ratcheting of lateral earth pressure could not be established for this bridge site. Finally, comparisons to earth pressures measured at other field studies indicate variability in the earth pressure distribution, magnitude, and behaviour over time, as these are dependent on several factors distinctive to each bridge site.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it