Seismic response of a model soil-pile-bridge system in cohesive soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the dynamic response of a model pile-soil-bridge system subjected to seismic loading using a finite element model (FEM) developed in OpenSees. The numerical model is validated against shake table test data from a companion experimental study, which tested a piles-bridge model fabricated from organic glass. The bridge model comprised four piers, each supported by two-by-two pile groups, with edge piers featuring 60 × 60 mm rubber pads between the pier and deck. Two earthquake ground motions, El Centro and Tianjin, were applied at three intensity levels. The calculated and measured responses show good agreement. The validated FEM reveals that the El Centro earthquake typically induces higher acceleration and moment responses in structural elements compared to the Tianjin earthquake, while the Tianjin earthquake results in greater displacement responses. These findings highlight the impact of earthquake wave characteristics, such as predominant period, on the bridge system's response. Furthermore, the bending moments at the pier top for edge piers remain relatively consistent across different earthquake motions and intensity levels, indicating the role of rubber pads in mitigating seismic forces in the piers. • Finite element analyses of Pile-soil-model bridge seismic tests are conducted. • FE models are validated with shake table test data. • Seismic response of pile-soil-bridge elements are elaborated revealing effects of earthquake characteristics. • Kinematic and inertial soil-structure interaction effects are evaluated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".