Impact Factors for Horizontally Curved Composite Box Girder Bridges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a method for determining the dynamic impact factors for horizontally curved composite single- or multicell box girder bridges under AASHTO truck loading. The bridges are modeled as three-dimensional structures using commercially available software. The vehicle is idealized as a pair of concentrated forces, with no mass, traveling in two circumferential paths parallel to the curved centerline of bridges. An extensive parametric study is conducted, in which over 215 curved composite box girder bridge prototypes are analyzed. The key parameters considered in this study are: Number of cells, number of lanes, degree of curvature, arc span length, slope of the outer steel webs, number and area of bracing and top chord systems, and truck(s) speed and truck(s) positioning. Based on the data generated from the parametric study, expressions for dynamic impact factors for longitudinal moment, reaction, and deflection are proposed as function of the ratio of the arc span length to the radius of curvature. The results from this study would enable bridge engineers to design horizontally curved composite box girder bridges more reliably and economically. Furthermore, the results can be used to potentially increase the live-load capacity of existing bridges to prevent posting or closing of the bridge.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".