Seismic collapse safety of RC circular bridge pier retrofitted with fibre reinforced polymer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the use of fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) composites sheets used to enhance the lateral confinement for improved ductility and strength of reinforced concrete (RC) bridge piers. The collapses of bridge structures in past and recent seismic events have raised concerns regarding the adequacy of lateral confinement of existing bridges to prevent the partial or total collapse. This research deals the seismic collapse safety of existing RC bridge piers retrofitted with FRP and compares with existing old RC bridge piers designed without consideration of seismic design guidelines. The collapse safety performance of FRP retrofitted RC bridge pier was evaluated using 20 different ground motions to compare the performance of FRP retrofitting system. Using incremental dynamic time history analysis, the collapse risk of the FRP retrofitted bridge piers was evaluated considering uncertainties in ground motion characteristic and structural modelling. The outcome of the research will provide an estimate of the dynamic capacity of the FRP retrofitted bridge piers and demonstrate the effectiveness of FRP-retrofitting technique as an external reinforcement.
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".