A Case Study on Evaluating the Performance Criteria of the 2014 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance based design provisions of the 2014 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CSA S6-14) have been applied to assess the seismic design of a three-span prestressed reinforced concrete bridge in Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Response spectrum and nonlinear time- history analyses of the bridge at 10%, 5%, and 2% probabilities of exceedance in 50 years hazard levels, and a static pushover analysis were carried out. Soil-structure interaction was considered assuming two soil conditions, corresponding to site classes C and D of CSA S6-14. The seismic performance of the bridge was also evaluated using the recently updated performance criteria in the 2016 BC MoTI Supplement to CSA S6-14. It was observed that the bridge design satisfied all of the performance criteria in both documents at all hazard levels and for both soil conditions, except for the CSA S6-14 criteria at 10% in 50 years probability of exceedance hazard level on site class D.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".