Curvature Limitations for Slab-on-I-Girder Bridges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, horizontally curved bridges have been widely used in congested urban areas, where multilevel interchange structures are necessary for modern highways. In bridges with light curvature, the curvature effects on bending, shear, and torsional stresses may be ignored if they are within an acceptable range. Treating horizontally curved bridges as straight bridges with certain limitations is one of the methods to simplify the design procedure. Bridge design specifications and codes have specified certain limitations to treat horizontally curved bridges as straight bridges. However, these limitations do not differentiate between bridge cross section configurations, in addition to being inaccurate in estimating the structural response. Moreover, these specifications were developed primarily for the calculation of girder bending moments. To investigate the accuracy of these limitations, a series of horizontally curved, braced concrete slab-over steel I-girder and slab-on-concrete I-girder bridges were analyzed, using three-dimensional finite-element modeling, to investigate their behavior under dead loading. The major internal forces developed in the members were determined, namely, girder longitudinal bending stresses, vertical deflections, vertical support reactions, and bridge fundamental flexural frequencies for different degrees of curvature, span length, bridge width, and span continuity. Empirical equations for these straining actions were developed as a function of those for straight bridges. The stipulations made in bridge codes for treating a curved bridge as a straight bridge were then correlated with the obtained values from the finite-element modeling. Results proved that such code limitations were unsafe. Based on the data generated from this parametric study, sets of empirical expressions were developed to determine such limitations more accurately and reliably.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".