Comparative study of integral abutment bridge structural analysis methods
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 primary goal is to accurately predict long-term integral abutment bridge (IAB) responses under thermal loads by applying available numerical modeling techniques developed on the basis of a long-term monitoring of in-service IABs. Considered methodologies are: (1) free expansion; (2) empirical approximate; (3) two-dimensional (2D) static analysis; (4) 2D time-history; (5) three-dimensional (3D) static analysis; and (6) 3D time-history. Specific IAB responses evaluated for the comparison are: girder axial force and moment, pile shear, moment, and displacement. The results indicate that the substructure responses predicted by all six analyses are reasonably comparable. However, the superstructure responses predicted by a 2D analysis are significantly different than predictions by a 3D analysis. Both 2D and 3D static analysis predictions tended to form boundaries for 2D and 3D time-history analysis. Therefore, this study concludes that a 3D time-history analysis is preferred for long-term, superstructure response predictions; all 2D and 3D static and time-history analyses are acceptable for substructure response predictions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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