MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluating the Seismic Behavior of Segmental Unbounded Posttensioned Concrete Bridge Piers Using Factorial Analysis

2015· article· en· W2197693230 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bridge Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSeismic Performance and Analysis
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStructural engineeringPierParametric statisticsStiffnessFactorialFinite element methodFactorial analysisSeismic analysisSeismic loadingGeotechnical engineeringFactorial experimentFractional factorial designEngineeringGeologyMathematicsStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Segmental unbounded posttensioned concrete bridge piers can resist large lateral drifts and eliminate residual deformation during an earthquake. The seismic behavior of posttensioned bridge piers depends on several factors, including concrete strength, posttensioning (PT) force, aspect ratio, and axial-load ratio. This study investigated the effects of these factors and their interactions on the seismic behavior of such piers, which are not adequately addressed in the existing literature. Here, finite-element models of unbounded posttensioned concrete piers were generated to perform a parametric study. These models were first validated with experimental results and then used to predict the seismic behavior of unbounded posttensioned concrete piers. At the initial stage, full factorial analysis was performed by considering the following three factors: PT level, PT ratio, and concrete strength. The results indicate that none of them in combination resulted negatively on pier yielding capacity and postelastic stiffness, as long as the axial-load ratio was within 20%. After this preliminary study, a more comprehensive fractional factorial study, including seven factors, was performed. In the fractional factorial analysis, each of the factors was considered at two levels. The piers were analyzed under reverse cyclic loading. Based on the lateral load-displacement responses of the piers, regression analysis was performed to propose equations for calculating global yielding and stiffness of piers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it