Seismic performance comparison between force-based and performance-based design as per Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance-based design (PBD) was first introduced in Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) in 2014. Performance-based design is the design that meets multiple performance criteria under different earthquake hazards. To investigate the impact of changes in CHBDC 2014, a four-span concrete highway bridge is designed and evaluated using force-based design (FBD) and PBD methods as per CHBDC 2014, and FBD method as per CHBDC 2006. By incorporating soil–structure interaction (using p–y curves) nonlinear pushover and dynamic time history analyses are conducted to assess the seismic performance of these bridges. Maximum strains of concrete and reinforcing steel are compared among the three designs to determine their performance levels. It is concluded that PBD (CHBDC 2014) is highly conservative compared to FBD (for both CHBDC 2014 and 2006). For the three-level PBD approach, the design is governed by the criterion of reinforcing steel not yielding under the design earthquake (with 475 years return period).
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".