MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Barge Bow Force–Deformation Relationships for Bridge Impact-Resistant Design: Development and Assessment Using Shock Spectrum Approximation

2022· article· en· W4297491733 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Fan, Keyu Lai, Michael Davidson, Tao Yang, Xu Huang, Bin Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bridge Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBARGEImpactStructural engineeringPierDeformation (meteorology)StiffnessFenderNonlinear systemFinite element methodFictitious forceMechanicsVibrationShock (circulatory)CollisionGeologyEngineeringPhysicsMarine engineeringComputer scienceAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Force–deformation relationships of waterway vessels play an important role in the impact-resistant design of bridge structures. Characterizations of barge bow force–deformation (i.e., crushing) behaviors found in design provisions and previous research are reviewed as part of the present study. Results obtained from use of the relationships in impact analyses are then compared with computed responses from high-resolution finite-element barge–bridge collision simulations. As motivated by the comparisons, new relationships are proposed to further enhance designer capabilities for head-on barge impact design. In developing the proposed relationships, a parametric study of nonlinear dynamic collision simulations is performed to account for impacted pier surface geometry and barge bow versus impacted surface widths. Considerations are also made for impact velocities and peaks in force magnitudes that can occur for deformations near to the onset of nonlinear bow crushing. Merits of the proposed force–deformation relationships are then assessed via the shock spectrum approximation method. Key characteristics of barge bow force–deformation relationships (e.g., initial stiffness, maximum force, residual force plateau, impulse) are identified across typical ranges of bridge vibration periods and also in relation to propensities of empirical curve components for bringing about severities in computed structural demands.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bridge EngineeringSame topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207