Seismic isolation of cable‐stayed bridges for near‐field ground motions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examines the efficacy of using seismic isolation to favorably influence the seismic response of cable‐stayed bridges subjected to near‐field earthquake ground motions. In near‐field earthquake ground motions, large amplitude spectral accelerations can occur at long periods where many cable‐stayed bridges have significant structural response modes. This combination of factors can result in large tower accelerations and base shears. In this study, lead–rubber bearing seismic isolators were modeled for three cable‐stayed bridges, and three cases of isolation were examined for each bridge. The nine isolated bridge configurations, plus three non‐isolated configurations as references, were subjected to near‐field earthquake ground motions using three‐dimensional time‐history analyses. Introduction of a small amount of isolation is shown to be very beneficial in reducing seismic accelerations and forces while at the same time producing only a modest increase in the structural displacements. There is a low marginal benefit to continue to increase the amount of isolation by further lengthening the period of the structure because structural forces and accelerations reduce at a diminishing rate whereas structural displacements increase substantially. In virtually all cases the base shears in the isolated bridges were reduced by at least 50several instances by up to 80individual near‐field records showed large variability from one record to the next, with coefficients of variation about the mean as large as 50assessing the characteristics of near‐field ground motion for use in isolation design of cable‐stayed bridges. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".