Analytical Seismic Fragility Curves for Reinforced Concrete Wall pier using Shape Memory Alloys considering maximum drift
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fragility curves express the seismic vulnerability of bridge piers for different damage states at various earthquake intensities. A fragility curve typically gives a physical understanding of repair costs and functionally levels of a bridge pier. Shape memory alloys (SMAs) provide a promising alternative material in reducing the failure probability of a bridge pier. This study develops a family of seismic fragility curves for reinforced concrete (RC) wall piers reinforced with three different types of SMA rebar in plastic hinge regions. An incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) using a total of 20 earthquake ground motions was performed on a SMA-RC wall pier to evaluate its seismic performance. The maximum drift recorded for each ground motion was taken as the seismic performance demand parameter of interest in this study. The probabilistic seismic demand model (PSDM) was used to generate fragility curves for each RC-SMA wall pier. The results show that the different mechanical properties and type of SMAs affect the performance of RC-SMA wall pier.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".