Two new types of bridges: under-deck cable-stayed bridges and combined cable-stayed bridges — the state of the art
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At least 20 cable-stayed bridges have been built over the last 30 years that cannot be classified under existing typologies for cable-stayed bridges. These structures represent two new types of cable-stayed bridges that we herein define as "under-deck cable-stayed bridges" and "combined cable-stayed bridges." The evolution of these new bridge types is explored through consideration of the different proposals and structures that have been built throughout this period, pointing out the innovations made in each of them. In this paper we propose a new classification system for bridges prestressed by means of tendons into which these two new bridge types will fit. Studies that have been made of these structural types are also highlighted. On the basis of the aforementioned, we describe the state-of-the-art for these structural types, compiling and cataloguing information, documents, and knowledge that were previously highly dispersed. Lastly, we make a critical analysis of the current situation and draw some key conclusions.Key words: under-deck cable-staying, combined cable-staying, cable-stayed bridges, extradosed prestressing, intradosed prestressing, prestressing.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".