Redundancy and Robustness in the Design and Evaluation of Bridges: European and North American Perspectives
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
In this paper, current and proposed methodologies for assessing the robustness and redundancy of bridge structures are discussed and an overview of the latest advances in research is presented along with proposals for implementation in bridge design and evaluation codes. In particular, European and North American standard codes and guidelines, including the Eurocode, AASHTO, and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), as well as some national European codes and related guidelines, are compared. Research projects, including those of the European Cooperation of Science and Technology (COST) and the U.S. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), represent key links between research activities and the need for implementing concepts of structural redundancy and robustness into the codes. The activities undertaken by COST and NCHRP constitute attempts to synthetize, simplify, and implement theoretical concepts that have been discussed over many years. This review shows that the U.S. approach concentrates on developing tools and criteria for the numerical evaluation of the capability of a bridge structure to continue to carry load after the failure of a member, whereas the European approach, still in a more theoretical phase, lacks specific guidelines for bridges and uses available building recommendations. This paper also presents a critical assessment of the state of the art and argues that criteria implementable in future generations of bridge codes should be based on quantifiable measures of risk, which is a subject still in its very early stages of development.
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 | 0.001 | 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