Effects of Ground Motion Incident Angle on Inelastic Seismic Demands of Skewed Bridges Subjected to Mainshock–Aftershock Sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several aftershocks can occur after a strong mainshock and lead to additional structural damage. The investigation of the seismic response of bridges is more challenging when the effects of incident angles of mainshocks and subsequent aftershocks are considered. This study investigates the effects of the ground motion incident angle on the nonlinear structural responses of skewed bridge structures against mainshock–aftershock sequences. For this objective, the seismic performance of a 60° skewed bridge located in San Fernando, California, is examined under real bidirectional mainshock–aftershock sequences. In this study, ground motion directionality effects were investigated considering the relative difference between mainshock and corresponding aftershock incident angles. The results showed that taking into account the incident angles of both mainshock and the corresponding aftershock can significantly affect the seismic performance of skew bridges. In particular, when the difference between the angles of the mainshock and corresponding aftershock was considered, the nonlinear responses of the case study increased up to 65.56%.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".