Effect of Scour on the Natural Frequency Responses of Bridge Piers: Development of a Scour Depth Sensor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Local scour is the removal of soil around bridge foundations under the erosive action of flowing water. This hydraulic risk has raised awareness of the need for developing continuous monitoring techniques to estimate scour depth around bridge piers and abutments. One of the emerging techniques is based on monitoring the vibration frequency of either bridge piers or a driven sensor in the riverbed. The sensor proposed in this study falls into the second category. Some unresolved issues are investigated: the effect of the geometry and material of the sensor, the effect of the embedded length and the effect of soil type. To this end, extensive laboratory tests are performed using rods of different materials, with various geometries and lengths. These tests are conducted in both dry sand and a soft clayey soil. Since the sensor will be placed in the riverbed, it is crucial to evaluate the effect of immersed conditions on its response. A numerical 3D finite-element model was developed and compared against experimental data. This model was then used to compute the ‘wet’ frequencies of the sensor. Finally, based on both the experimental and numerical results, an equivalent cantilever model is proposed to correlate the variation of the frequency of the sensor to the scour depth.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".