Positioning of bearings for curved continuous spread-box girder bridges
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
The type and arrangement of bearings for a bridge superstructure are important considerations in bridge design. For a curved continuous spread-box girder bridge, the support conditions for the bridge superstructure may significantly influence the distribution factors for maximum stresses, reactions, and shear forces as well as the bridge natural frequencies and mode shapes. Current design practices in North America recommend very few guidelines for bearing arrangements and types. This paper describes an extensive study carried out using an experimentally calibrated finite element model, in which curved continuous prototype bridges were analyzed to determine their structural response. Six different types and arrangements of support bearings were studied to determine their effect on the maximum stress and reaction distributions as well as on the natural frequencies of such bridges. The results were used to suggest the most favourable bearing arrangement and type.Key words: bridge bearings, composite, continuous, curved bridges, design, distribution factors, finite element, spread-box.
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