Fragility Assessment in RC Bridges Considering the Cumulative Damage over Time Due To Earthquakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a criterion to estimate the structural fragility of reinforced concrete bridges considering the cumulative damage over time caused by seismic sequences.Fragility curves are obtained for different instants of interest associated with different levels of performance.The occurrence of seismic loads are characterized by a stochastic Poisson process.Uncertainties related with the construction processes of the structural elements and the manufacturing of the materials are considered.Fragility curves at the instants of 0, 50, 75, 100 y 125 years are obtained from nonlinear dynamic analysis which the maximum drift of the bridge deck is considered as the parameter of seismic demand measurement.The criterion is illustrated in a continuous RC bridge designed to satisfy a performance level equal to 0.002, the bridge is structured by AASHTO -type beams and circular columns.The structure is located in Acapulco, Guerrero, Mexico.The probability of exceedance of the drift design threshold of 0.002 associated with intensities of 0.05 sa/g increases up to 58% between 0 years (without damage) and 125 years after the bridge construction when the cumulative damage given by seismic sequences over time is considered.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".