Seismic performance of bridges designed according to AS 5100
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
Bridges are the critical components of a nation's transportation system, as closure of an important bridge in the event of an earthquake can disrupt the total transportation network. In Australian standard for bridge design, ASBD (AS 5100-2004), consistent with other major bridge design codes (for example, AASHTO in the USA and CAN/CSA-S6 in Canada), bridges are classified according to their importance levels. The anticipated performances (performance objectives) of the bridges in small to moderate (Return Period, RP= 100 years), design level (RP= 500 years) and large (RP=2500 years) earthquake events have been specified in major bridge design codes, although not explicitly stated in ASBD for bridge design. It is believed that similar performance objectives should also be anticipated for the bridges designed for different importance levels according to ASBD. However, there appears to be no requirement in the code to check whether such multiple performance objectives have been achieved for the designed bridge.Also, no engineering parameters have been assigned to the anticipated performance objectives. This paper correlates seismic performance objectives (both qualitative and quantitative) with engineering parameters which are based on the data collected from available experimental investigations and field investigations from recent earthquakes. A simple methodology has been developed and validated with experimental results for assessing the performance of bridges designed according ASBD. It has been found that the design rules prescribed in ASBD do not guarantee that intended multiple seismic performance objectives can be obtained. Implicit seismic design rule in the form of Performance Response. Modification Factor (PRMF) has been outlined for performance based seismic design of bridges. The implicit design rule has the potential for further development in order to be incorporated in the next generation ASBD.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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