Theoretical Study Regarding the General Stability of Upper Chords of Truss Bridges as Beams on Continuous or Discrete Elastic Supports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New or in-service truss bridges, with or without upper bracing systems, may display instability phenomena such as general lateral torsional buckling of the upper chord. The buckling of structural elements, particularly in the case of steel bridges, can be associated with the risk of collapse or temporary/permanent withdrawal from service. Such incidents have occurred in the case of several bridges in different countries: the collapse of the Dee bridge with truss girders in 1847 in Cheshire, England; the collapse of the semi-parabolic truss girder bridge near Ljubičevo over the Morava River in Serbia in 1892; the collapse of the Dysart bridge in Cambria County, Pennsylvania in 2007; the collapse of the Chauras bridge in Uttarakhand, India in 2012; and the collapse of a bridge in Nova Scotia, Canada (2020), and such examples may continue. Buckling poses a significant danger as it often occurs at lower load values compared to those considered during the design phase. Additionally, this phenomenon can manifest suddenly, without prior warning, rendering intervention for its prevention impossible or futile. In contemporary times, most research and design calculation software offer the capability to establish preliminary values for buckling loads, even for highly intricate structures. This is typically achieved through linear eigenvalue buckling analyses, often followed by significantly more complex large displacement nonlinear analyses. However, interpreting the results for complex bridge structures can be challenging, and their accuracy is difficult to ascertain. Consequently, this paper aims to introduce an original method for a more straightforward estimation of the buckling load of the upper chord in steel truss bridges. This method utilizes the theory of beams on discrete elastic supports. The buckling load of the upper chord was determined using both the finite element method and the proposed methodology, yielding highly consistent results.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".