MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2535398262 · doi:10.11159/icsenm16.118

Failure Analysis of Flood Collapse of the Tex Wash Bridge

2016· article· en· W2535398262 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maryam Tabbakhha, Abolhassan Astaneh‐Asl, Daniel Christian Setioso

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythBridge (graph theory)Forensic engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Located east of City of Palm Springs, the Tex-Wash Bridge is a bridge over the Tex-Wash dry river on Interstate Highway 10. On July 19, 2015, one of the three spans of the Tex-Wash Bridge collapsed due to flooding resulting from heavy rain. This paper summarizes the failure analysis to understand the cause of this collapse, and to learn engineering lessons from this collapse. Using the "As-Built" drawings of the bridge, a nonlinear FE model of the bridge was created in ANSYS. The model then was subjected to simulated flood waters until the bridge collapsed. By studying the results of FE analysis it was concluded that the collapse occurred due to combination of five factors: (1) the bridge had a length of about half of the width of the flood path, creating a bottle-neck on the path of the flood, (2) flood waters before reaching the bridge made an "S" curve turning right and then left before going under the bridge, which resulted in washing the soil under the east abutment, (3) the east abutment was supported on fill soil without piles, therefore when the supporting soil under the abutment washed away , it could not be supported and collapsed, (4) the wing walls in the abutment were perpendicular to the flood waters, resulting in flood waters pushing the abutment and collapsing it, (5) when the abutment lost its supporting fill-soil and was pushed by flood and collapsed, the deck slab of the roadway supported on it also collapsed.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207