Some relevant aspects of footbridge vibrations
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
Considering the contemporary structural inaterials that are becoming more resistant, having higher strength to weight ratio, and the fact that live load of footbridges is low, the design based on static analysis only, respecting ultimate limit states requirements, leads to slender bridge structures for pedestrian and cycle track use. As a consequence, stiffness and masses decrease, facing lively, easy to excite structures, with smaller natural frequencies. The excitation of a footbridge by a pedestrian passing over it can be unpleasant for a person walking or standing on the bridge, but usually not destructive for the structure itself. Recent experiences regarding dynamic behavior of slender footbridges have especially shown that vibration serviceability limit states are very important requirements in any structural design. We are presenting a general algorithm for analytical testing of dynamic parameters of structures, calculation of deflection, thus speed and acceleration of superstructure under human-induced excitation, as predicted by Eurocode, British and Canadian standards in use, since no Yugoslav code deals with the problem. The evaluated system is a footbridge in a system of a simply supported concrete girder. The presented model is used to show correspondence of results, obtained by the algorithm, with the results obtained using the simplified methods suggested by the Codes of Practice, since the latter exists only for certain structural systems.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it