MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006979508 · doi:10.3390/s20041227

Seismic Assessment of Footbridges under Spatial Variation of Earthquake Ground Motion (SVEGM): Experimental Testing and Finite Element Analyses

2020· article· en· W3006979508 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Engineering and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringFinite element methodKinematicsModal analysisModalModal testingEngineeringGeologyPhysicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the seismic assessments of two footbridges, i.e., a single-span steel frame footbridge and a three-span cable-stayed structure, to the spatial variation of earthquake ground motion (SVEGM) are presented. A model of nonuniform kinematic excitation was used for the dynamic analyses of the footbridges. The influence of SVEGM on the dynamic performance of structures was assessed on both experimental and numerical ways. The comprehensive tests were planned and carried out on both structures. The investigation was divided into two parts: in situ experiment and numerical analyses. The first experimental part served for the validation of both the finite element (FE) modal models of structures and the theoretical model of nonuniform excitation as well as the appropriateness of the FE procedures used for dynamic analyses. First, the modal properties were validated. The differences between the numerical and the experimental natural frequencies, obtained using the operational modal analysis, were less than 10%. The comparison of the experimental and numerical mode shapes also proved a good agreement since the modal assurance criterion values were satisfactory for both structures. Secondly, nonuniform kinematic excitation was experimentally imposed using vibroseis tests. The apparent wave velocities, evaluated from the cross-correlation functions of the acceleration-time histories registered at two consecutive structures supports, equaled 203 and 214 m/s for both structures, respectively. Also, the coherence functions proved the similarity of the signals, especially for the frequency range 5 to 15 Hz. Then, artificial kinematic excitation was generated on the basis of the adopted model of nonuniform excitation. The obtained power spectral density functions of acceleration-time histories registered at all supports as well as the cross-spectral density functions between registered and artificial acceleration-time histories confirmed the strong similarity of the measured and artificial signals. Finally, the experimental and numerical assessments of the footbridges performance under the known dynamic excitation generated by the vibroseis were carried out. The FE models and procedures were positively validated by linking full-scale tests and numerical calculations. In the numerical part of the research, seismic analyses of the footbridges were conducted. The dynamic responses of structures to a representative seismic shock were calculated. Both the uniform and nonuniform models of excitation were applied to demonstrate and quantify the influence of SVEGM on the seismic assessment of footbridges. It occurred that SVEGM may generate non-conservative results in comparison with classic uniform seismic excitation. For the stiff steel frame footbridge the maximum dynamic response was obtained for the model of nonuniform excitation with the lowest wave velocity. Especially zones located closely to stiff frame nodes were significantly more disturbed. For the flexible cable-stayed footbridge, in case of nonuniform excitation, the dynamic response was enhanced only at the points located in the extreme spans and in the midspan closely to the pillars.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it