Nonlinear analysis of isotropic slab bridges under extreme traffic loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Probabilistic analysis of traffic loading on a bridge traditionally involves an extrapolation from measured or simulated load effects to a characteristic maximum value. In recent years, long run simulations, whereby thousands of years of traffic are simulated, have allowed researchers to gain new insights into the nature of the traffic scenarios that govern at the limit state. For example, mobile cranes and low-loaders, sometimes accompanied by a common articulated truck, have been shown to govern in most cases. In this paper, the extreme loading scenarios identified in the long-run simulation are applied to a non-linear, two-dimensional (2D) plate finite element model. For the first time, the loading scenarios that govern in 2D nonlinear analyses are found and compared to those that govern for 2D linear and one-dimensional (1D) linear and nonlinear analyses. Results show that, for an isotropic slab, the governing loading scenarios are similar to those that govern in simple 1D (beam) models. Furthermore, there are only slight differences in the critical positions of the vehicles. It is also evident that the load effects causing failure in the 2D linear elastic plate models are significantly lower, i.e., 2D linear elastic analysis is more conservative than both 2D nonlinear and 1D linear and nonlinear analyses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".