The Response Modification Factor for Seismic Design of Integral Abutment Bridges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The response modification factor (R factor) is a crucial parameter for calculating the design seismic forces applied to a bridge structure. This factor considers the nonlinear performance of bridges during strong ground motions. Conventional bridge structures rely on the substructure components to resist earthquake forces. Accordingly, there are R factors available in the design codes based on the type of bridge substructure system. Lateral load resisting system of Integral Abutment Bridges (IABs) in the longitudinal direction is more complex than ordinary bridges. It involves the contributions from soils behind the abutments and soil/structure interaction (SSI) in addition to existing rigid connection between the superstructure and abutments. There is no R factor available in any design code throughout the world for IABs in the longitudinal direction that considers all these parameters. In this research, the Federal Emergency Management Agency publication FEMA P695 methodology has been applied to estimate the R factor for IABs. It is found that 3.5 could be a safe and valid R factor in the longitudinal direction for seismic design of such 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".