Mechanical System Evolution and Reasonable Structural Design Parameters of Long-Span Deck-Type Beam-Arch Composite Rigid Frame Bridge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-span deck-type beam-arch composite rigid frame (BACRF) bridge fully integrates the merits of arch bridges and beam bridges, and overcomes the cracking and deflection problems of continuous rigid frame bridges. As a perfect combination of beam bridges and arch bridges, the long-span deck-type BACRF bridge boasts a light structure, a strong bearing capacity, and a powerful spanning capability. From the perspective of mechanical system evolution, this paper theoretically analyzes the structural mechanics of the beam-arch composite system, establishes a half-bridge model for BACRF bridge, and derives the expressions of the internal force and displacement of the beam-arch composite system. Next, finite-element analysis was conducted to analyze how the variation of a single parameter, e.g., rise-span ratio, open web ratio, and side-to-middle span ratio, affects midspan displacement, arch-beam junction displacement, main beam bending moment, and main arch axial force. Finally, the calculation formula for deflection-span ratio of BACRF bridge was proposed based on the maximum hyperplane method. The research results provide a reference for the structural design of similar bridges.
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 | 0.000 | 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".