New ASCE/COPRI Design Standards for Piers and Wharves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To analyze and design piers and wharves, engineers must reference and integrate more than 40 national and international existing standards and guidelines. In 2019, the American Society of Civil Engineers’ (ASCE) Coasts, Oceans, Ports and Rivers Institute (COPRI) voted to create a standards committee to develop a new Design Standards for Piers and Wharves to address the lack of a comprehensive standard or guidance in the United States. The purpose of this committee is to create a consensus-driven, single resource document that provides consistent analysis and design guidance for determining loads, load combinations, and load factors to design for mooring, berthing, and metocean conditions. This new ASCE/COPRI Design Standards for Piers and Wharves will apply to the design, construction, alteration, expansion, upgrade, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of piers and wharves or near-shore marine structures. The purpose of this standard is to provide minimum requirements, loads, load combinations, hazard levels, associated criteria, and performance goals based on current scientific and engineering knowledge, experience, and industry practice. This paper provides a summary of the new ASCE/COPRI Design Standards for Piers and Wharves by topic area and includes technical challenges and identifies potential research needs.
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 | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
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".