MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401122912 · doi:10.3390/app14156627

The Seismic Behavior of Rectangular Concrete-Encased Steel Bridge Piers: A Review

2024· review· en· W4401122912 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohammadreza Moradian, Munzer Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringBridge (graph theory)Geotechnical engineeringForensic engineeringEngineeringGeologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a review of the previous research work and the representative publications regarding the seismic behavior of the concrete-encased steel (CES) columns. Concrete-encased steel sections are composed of steel sections encased in reinforced concrete members. The research work recently showed increased attention to this type of column due to its advantages compared to conventional reinforced concrete columns. Firstly, the analytical studies of the behavior of the CES columns under axial loads, including comparative studies between different research works, are presented. Then, the behavior of the CES columns under combined axial and flexural loads is also highlighted. An overview of the analytical confinement material models is addressed. In addition, the discussion and summary of the seismic behavior of the CES columns and the important parameters affecting the seismic behavior of these types of columns are included. Although important progress has been made by the previous studies in the CES columns under the axial load and the combination of axial and seismic loads, they fundamentally focused on the building columns, and little attention was paid to the impact of lateral reinforcement and their configuration in bridge piers. Due to the lack of studies on the parameters affecting the seismic behavior of the bridges, more studies should still be made to better understand the behavior of the CES bridge piers. This paper provides a reference for the research and engineering practice of concrete-encased steel bridge piers. It also concludes with suggestions for future studies to integrate the seismic requirement of the CES bridge piers in Canada.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.317
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207