Influence of abutment straight backwall fracture on the seismic response of bridges
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Field reconnaissance reports reveal the seismic vulnerability of bridge abutment foundations. To reduce the time and cost of postearthquake repair, modern seismic design specifications allow abutment backwalls to fracture before the supporting abutment foundations reach their maximum strength. This design strategy enables abutment backwalls to function as a fuse, thus protecting the abutment foundations from experiencing excessive forces and damage. This paper introduces a new abutment modeling scheme to capture the shear fracture mechanism of straight backwalls in seat abutments. To this end, a backwall connection spring is developed and incorporated into a spring system that simulates the behavior of various abutment components. The importance of considering the backwall fracture is examined by reviewing conventional modeling methodologies for abutments and building companion numerical models. Static pushover and incremental dynamic analyses (IDAs) were conducted for two bridges (single‐ and two‐span) modeled by both the proposed and conventional abutment modeling schemes. Moreover, component‐level fragility curves are developed using IDA results. The comparisons show that the conventional abutment modeling schemes significantly overestimate abutment foundation damage and underestimate the likelihood of deck unseating, column damage, and bearing displacement in the passive direction. Conversely, the proposed modeling scheme is able to capture the essential seismic responses of various components in seat abutment bridges. The consideration of backwall fracture in the modeling of abutment components enables a more rational seismic response assessment of bridges with backwalls, which are likely to be damaged during earthquakes, particularly for bridges which are seismically designed to protect abutment foundations.
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 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 it