Case study of the seismic response of an extra‐dosed cable‐stayed bridge with cable‐sliding friction aseismic bearing using shake table tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This paper presents an experimental case study of an extra‐dosed cable‐stayed bridge isolated by cable‐sliding friction aseismic bearing (CSFAB) based on 1/20 scaled half structure multiple shake table test. The mechanical characteristics of new version CSFAB are first described in details. Then the half structure test method is introduced and validated by finite element model analyses. The test setup with 4 independent shake tables is later introduced. The test model was subjected to a suite of ground motions of increasing peak ground acceleration, first while the bridge was isolated by CSFABs and subsequently while it was isolated by conventional sliding bearings. Observation and measured seismic responses are reported. During the tests, the CSFAB system had high isolation efficiency at mild girder‐pier relative seismic displacement and could restrain girder movement at excessive relative displacement. The test results also indicate self‐centering capacity of CSFAB. Although the effectiveness of the restraining function of CSFAB is evident, momentary increase in girder acceleration and pier acceleration could be witnessed during the restraining, which could lead to enlarged seismic force and moment of the pier. Therefore, it is recommended that the maximum restraining force of the cables be carefully designed considering the pier strength.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".