MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200116054 · doi:10.18280/mmep.080614

Earthquake Resistance Optimization and Evaluation of Bridge Piers Structural Form and Dimensions Based on Demand to Capacity Ratio and Yielding Points of Force-Displacement

2021· article· en· W4200116054 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hussein Abad Gazi Jaaz, Ali Fadhil Naser, Hussam Ali Mohammed, Ayad Ali Mohammed

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPierStructural engineeringBridge (graph theory)Displacement (psychology)Earthquake resistanceTransverse planeStiffnessEngineeringCross section (physics)Geotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evaluation of structural safety must be taken after each earthquake. The importance losses of life and materials carries the significance of the works in the field of earthquake engineering. The purpose of this study was to optimize and evaluate the earthquake resistance of bridge piers by adopting different cross-section forms and dimensions for bridge supports under earthquake action. Two methods of seismic design were used in the optimization and evaluation process. These methods were demand to capacity ratio (DCR) and yielding point. The results of demand to capacity ratio shown that the values of DCR for all piers forms models were increased when the dimension of pier cross section were increased and the values of DCR became less than 1.0, indicating that the increasing in dimensions leading to rise the capacity of bridge supports to carry the earthquake loads in transverse and longitudinal direction. Comparing with models, solid wall pier form had the lower value of DCR, indicating that solid wall piers were suitable in the design of bridge supports to resist the lateral loads of earthquake and it has enough stiffness and capacity under earthquake action. The results of performance points shown that the yielding points were increased when the dimensions of piers were increased for all piers form in transverse and longitudinal direction. The maximum values were appeared within support No. 1 and support No. 4. Solid wall form of pier had the higher values of yielding points, meaning that this type of piers form had higher seismic capacity and it will resist the earthquake action more than others piers form. This study recommended that to use third model for each pier form in the design of bridges structures to resist the earthquake load. Also this study was recommended to use solid wall piers as supports in construction of bridge structure within areas had earthquake action.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207