Influence of frequency‐dependent soil–structure interaction on the fragility of R/C bridges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Bridge performance under earthquake loading can be significantly influenced by the interaction between the structure and the supporting soil. Even though the frequency dependence of the interaction mentioned in this study has long been documented, the simplifying assumption that the dynamic stiffness is dominated by the mean or predominant excitation frequency is still commonly made, primarily as a result of the associated numerical difficulties when the analysis has to be performed in the time domain. This study makes use of the advanced lumped parameter models recently developed in order to quantify the impact of the assumption on the predicted fragility of bridges mentioned in this study. This is achieved by comparing the predicted vulnerability for the case of a reference, well studied, actual bridge using both conventional, frequency‐independent, Kelvin–Voigt models and the aforementioned lumped parameter formulation. Analysis results demonstrate that the more refined consideration of frequency dependence of soil–structure interaction at the piers and the abutments of a bridge not only leads to different probabilities of failure for given intensity measures but also leads to different hierarchy and distribution of damage within the structure for the same set of earthquake ground motions even if the overall probability of exceeding a given damage state is the same. The paper concludes with the comparative assessment of the effect for different soil conditions, foundation configurations, and ground motion characteristics mentioned in this study along with the relevant analysis and design recommendations. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".