Numerical Assessment of Seismic Earth Pressures for Integral Abutment Bridges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integral abutment bridges (IAB) consist of a continuous concrete deck integrated with abutments generally supported by a row of piles and they are cost-effective with less maintenance efforts. However, the abutment walls of the these bridges are subject to significant seismic loads during strong seismic shaking as opposed to the bridges with joints separating deck and abutments and there are limited guidelines available in the literature to evaluate the seismic loads on the abutments walls. The paper presents the results of the dynamic soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis carried out for a typical two-span bridge with integral abutments using the computer program FLAC2D. The bridge structure has been represented by a series of beam and pile elements that interact with the continuum medium through normal and shear soil springs. The slippage between abutment and soil has been accounted for by introducing interface elements in the model. The piles supporting the abutment walls are driven on to the bedrock and the middle pier is support by rock sockets extended into the bedrock. The bedrock is classified as “Class A” in accordance with the 2014 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC). The seismic loads computed from the SSI analyses were compared with those estimated from the simplified analyses available from the literature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".