Mechanical Performance of Curved Link-Slab of Simply Supported Bridge Beam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a curved link-slab (CLS) structure, simplified into a hingeless-arch model, to address the current cracking phenomenon of CLS concrete. The stress formula of the hingeless arch under various loads is derived based on the classical mechanic's method. Based on an actual bridge example, the mechanical properties of CLS are analyzed under different loads and load combinations. The results show that: (1) the CLS stress is significantly lower than that of the flat link-slab structure (FLS), (2) its stress values are less than the concrete tensile limit, and (3) the CLS can effectively solve the concrete cracking phenomenon on the link-slab. The rationality of the stress formula derived from the simplified model of the hingeless arch is verified using the finite element method (FEM). The parametric sensitivity analysis shows that variation of the reinforcement ratio of the CLS has a limited impact on it. Considering both the concrete tensile and compressive limit, the thickness of the CLS should be 15 cm to 20 cm, and its design span should be about 5% to7.5% of the main beam length.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".