MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051245337 · doi:10.1139/l01-036

Evaluation of design requirements for footbridges excited by vertical forces from walking

2001· article· en· W2051245337 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsServiceability (structure)PedestrianVibrationEngineeringStructural engineeringDesign loadCivil engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The continuing trend towards the design of more slender, lighter, and livelier footbridges has created new challenges that are not properly addressed in a number of widely used codes of practice in Europe and Canada. Recent research into vibration serviceability of slender structures under human-induced dynamic loading suggests that improvements to the existing footbridge design guidelines are possible in the area of modelling human-induced excitation in the vertical direction. This paper evaluates the performance of currently used codes of practice regarding vibration serviceability of footbridges under human-induced loads due to walking. The evaluation is supported by experimental evidence from tests carried out by the authors on potentially lively footbridges. A description of recent research advances is included, together with a comparative analysis of the approaches of some pertinent guidelines used internationally to tackle this design problem. In addition, suggestions are made for re-addressing the problem of vibration serviceability of footbridges by focusing attention on a more realistic definition of vertical pedestrian loading and the corresponding frequency ranges of interest. It was found that the codes are either conservative or lack appropriate safety margins, depending on the frequency range excited by moving pedestrians. This is principally due to the lack of proper consideration for the frequency content of the pedestrian load, which would take into account developments since the 1970s when the scientific data used in the majority of the current codes of practice were produced.Key words: vibration, serviceability, walking, footbridges, design, codes, dynamic loading factor, evaluation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it