Inertial and kinematic interactions of bridge‐pile group subjected to liquefaction induced lateral spreading: Large‐scale shaking table experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper investigates the seismic bridge‐pile‐soil system failure mechanisms due to liquefaction‐induced lateral spreading. Two large‐scale shaking table tests were performed on pile groups with and without bridges in sloped liquefiable soils overlain by soil crust. The systems were subjected to a weak earthquake signal (Tabas 0.05 g) and a strong earthquake signal (Tabas 0.3 g). Their responses were recorded in terms of excess pore pressure, acceleration, and displacement time histories. The piles seismic failure mode and mechanism are described based on the obtained results. In addition, the inertial and kinematic interaction effects on the piles’ deflection were evaluated. The results demonstrated that the bridge had no significant effect on the seismic response of the pile‐soil system under weak earthquakes. Meanwhile, the test model without a bridge experienced more significant soil lateral displacement, and the saturated sand exhibited dilatant behavior, and amplified the acceleration peak response during the strong earthquake. Moreover, the liquefaction‐induced lateral spreading moved the vulnerable position of the pile group bridge system from the pier bottom to the pile head, which changed the failure mode of the pile head. The results also revealed that, compared with weak earthquake excitation, the kinematic effect was significantly enhanced, and the inertia effect was weakened during strong earthquakes. Moreover, the pile curvature during both weak and strong earthquakes was inversely proportional to the bridge inertial load.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".